R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.  (Read 7095 times)

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2005, 05:19:25 pm »

Logged

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2005, 05:23:36 pm »

Logged

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2005, 05:27:49 pm »

Poyser wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 16:23

Q DC: "you will never answer any follow-up questions"

Actually this is a brilliant method of operation, because you can make your point, but never have to be answerable to anyone.

Actually, anyone who claims anything here should be prepared to answer any questioning that comes from their claims, be it Bill, DC, me - anybody.

If one doesn't want to offer proof of one's claims, there are many other boards where one can post them.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2005, 05:50:11 pm »

Poyser wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 14:23


Actually this is a brilliant method of operation, because you can make your point, but never have to be answerable to anyone.



Or a way to just make outrageous claims of things you've done, gear you have, records you've done, and not be accountable?

Quote:


What if they tested Bill's I.Q. and found it's twice both of ours put together Dave?



I'ts my understanding that it was originally called the Stanford/Roberts test, before Benet got involved.


Quote:


Perhaps this is the reason you 'struggle' with Bill's 'ground breaking' methods so?



Perhaps.  Or perhaps my BS meter is more sensitive than yours?

DC

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2005, 05:51:12 pm »

Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2005, 06:12:47 pm »

HansP wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 11:20

Level wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 06:41

Sound sweet hans...remember, movie context...level lower will give a different frequency layout..on your buss..

Study movie soundtrack level, not pop music nor cd.

See if that affords you more depth.



thx!
so how is this one? Wink
added some expansion and stepped back a bit, from the HF boost.
(changed C -> D went to a more vintage approach, the other was somewhat synthetic)

with ronny's take, I have the problem of denoizer artifacts.
to cure the tape hiss, I would need a noise footprint.




Ideally we would have all had a higher res aiff or wav copy and some dead air to noise profile for the fingerprint. The fact that the clip starts at high level taken from the middle of the tune and a fade to black done digitally at the end pretty much negates noise profiling, but alas if you want to make a living in this business, these are things that you have to learn to deal with. We can't always get the sections of tape that we need, to do the most efficient restoration job and this clip falls under that category. After all folks we are attempting to master an mp3, it's not a Steinway and I agree with Bill that mp3's get a bad rep, because an mp3 is only as good as the source material and the person that created it. In proper hands mp3 is a viable medium for playback, but it certainly doesn't take well to the same processes that you can use on .wav's and aif's.

Chris, if you'll A/B mine with the original, you just may find that the instruments are heard more cleanly and appear to occupy better spaces, but without altering too much from the original mix. Pan trajectories are not altered and I used no M-S. As far as mixing for mono and worrying about mono compatibility, I no longer worry about it, because I don't feel that compromising the stereo mix to make it more mono compatible is warranted these days. How many mono listening stations is the song going to go through? A mono cheapo clock radio that wakes you up with WKRP, a few AM stations that mainly feature talk shows. 99.9% of the listeners today, listen through stereo systems on this type of genre. I mastered the tune not with film in mind, but just did what I normally do, which is what I thought you guys were doing, until I read the posts after I mastered my version. Anyway Bill cleared that up.

Let me give you my take on the rest of the versions, the originals that were on or before the "all clip". The most offensive thing that I heard on the original song, was the non-audio noise and that's what I felt addressing would do the most for this song. On all but Bill's and Allen's versions, on my system the noise has actually increased. No doubt due to some of the folks boosting the hi-mids to bring out the hat. While the hat sounds more profound and crisper, the freq's that were altered to achieve this accenuated the noise above the level that it was at in the original, no surprise as the hat and hiss occupy the same freqs. Mastering to me is all about give and take, you can never have a perfect song and you have to weight what is beneficial to the overall composition. If it means not having the hat seated where you want and keeping the noise floor down, than it's a good trade off and the song will sound better in the end. Although Allen's and Bill's version weren't as clean as I would have liked to have heard them, they didn't increase the noise.

WRT, the low end, there is some bass resonance on the original, worse at some spots than others. I heard one version that increased the bass rumble on my system and spread it to more notes across the timeline, it sounded worse than the original. The bass notes weren't great on the original and when you are dealing with low end on the 2 bus, it's not an easy task to give space to the bass notes on some tunes that have the lack of recording quality or lack of archive longevity of this tune or the mp3 medium as the only source, but there are some things that you can do to attenuate the resonance so that the notes don't sound like they are run together in just one ball of low end. Again this is a trade off situation of having just enough low end or trying for more and boosting the wrong freq's where the resonance is most profound. Typically when I master stuff from the home recording crowd it's sometimes too bright or too boomy and I think this has to deal with room acoustics and quality of monitors. We all hear differently and we all have different systems, what I'm listening for in a tune is going to differ from the next guy, but I've found that there is a medium ground when it comes to restoration and mastering, often more is less and less is more and part of the key is knowing what not to do and not so much in what to do.    
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2005, 06:14:40 pm »

Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2005, 07:33:29 pm »

Well, I'd love to answer questions, but it seems like (1) I'm already answering them so nobody needs to bother asking, (2) I'm talking arcane tech-gibberish but it happens not to be BS, just sort of fringe, and (3) as soon as I come up with something that's actually good by the unwritten rules, it goes uncommented because Bill isn't actually setting out to lose or anything  Confused

I think I nailed it the second time around. For the first time, I would've needed a noisefloor sample, and better yet an AIFF or WAV. You cannot boost the highs that much off a totally murky mp3 at any bit rate. It's still like a sixteenth of the information of the uncompressed version, and the low level stuff is exactly what goes. So I boosted them anyway, sue me Wink

It's all good practice and a chance to get feedback and critique- I hope there are still people game to critique the entries including those done after Bill explained what we were supposed to be doing in the first place. Color me a noisy rock freak. I thought it wanted to sound 80s, what with the synths and all Wink

HansP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2005, 07:37:42 pm »

hmm, bill gave us a zen koan to play with..

ronny, kudos, and good to discuss.
without instructions, much is up to taste.

* ok, I should bring my tape hiss library from the basement  Razz
the tradeoff is obvious, we can have it clean, with a good hihat, and no artifacts - any two of them!
I chose for more openness and a nice hihat. personally, I don't mind a little hiss in old recordings, I prefer to get the maximum of the information that has survived. to me, most denoisers sound very ugly or make it dull when they are adjusted for a bigger impact. also in a non-audiophile surrounding, the noise wouldn't big time disturb, it's mostly on the high end.
still it is true, that another pass with a well-chosen tape noise model would improve the thing remarkably.

* I'd like to remind that nowadays a big number of listening systems have a single bass woofer.
bill and I have tried very similar: we collapsed the stereo width for the bass. so this is what we get. the nice harmonics that make the bass clear and precise, are anti-phase, and the resonance is mostly straight. so some results are very good, where the contributors have time/phase-shifted parts of the bass spectrum. this time, I left that out, - will need to find me a generic allpass to check around. I think, here it is better than time-shifting the LF.
lee: I like the bass drum! in my perception the low end is somewhat too much, but with a good structure, so it is easy to attenuate.

btw, reminds me of a theater hall, where a friend of mine was the audio operator, and the famous sound company had installed the speaker cabinets with a mis-connected bass woofer on one side.
Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2005, 08:42:03 pm »

HansP wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 19:37


I chose for more openness and a nice hihat. personally, I don't mind a little hiss in old recordings, I prefer to get the maximum of the information that has survived. to me, most denoisers sound very ugly or make it dull when they are adjusted for a bigger impact.


Indeed, that's very much how I see it. If I'd had a sample of noisefloor I'd have tried to do noise reduction- maybe not, mp3 will totally screw that up by 'gating' most bins anyway- but I'd have only ducked the gated bins a little, not cut them out entirely. It's like some other types of correction I've seen, where you don't obliterate the bad quality completely, you just tone it down until other things distract the attention from it.

Quote:


bill and I have tried very similar: we collapsed the stereo width for the bass. so this is what we get. the nice harmonics that make the bass clear and precise, are anti-phase, and the resonance is mostly straight. so some results are very good, where the contributors have time/phase-shifted parts of the bass spectrum.


Both times I tried it, I treated it as a matter of EQing mid and side separately. In the case of the side channel, it wasn't about obliterating all bass, just dialing it back until it didn't have that overloaded, resonant quality. I actually had it continually diminishing to something like 30 db down by the time you got to 10 hz, as if I was contriving to cut lacquer. The mid channel proved bass-shy when you took the side out, so I boosted. The combination of these effects meant that the bass guitar was more controlled but still had some of the original character- bass drum did end up considerably louder than the source, but I was trying to balance it with the bass guitar and had reasonably okay results doing that. The expansion helped- I can set it to track the lowest frequencies and expand them, and that helped define the bass drum lows.

So the mid/side stuff is partly like collapsing the stereo width for the bass, except that you can also do the inverse EQ on the mid channel and not change the overall balance that much. I do like the idea of taking bass out of Side content- the deal is, if you're low enough that the wavelength is close to the distance the woofers are apart, out-of-phase bass is totally wasted and does nothing. One pushes, the other pulls, the pressure zone in the room remains the same and you're just burning amplifier power to no effect.

If I was doing a third try I'd shift phase differently for each channel to see if I could make the bass guitar more interesting- but I ain't doing a third try Very Happy that sort of thing gets boring, I'll live and die by what I already did.

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2005, 10:25:51 pm »

Poyser wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 15:14


Yes OK, I know what you both are saying, and I fully accept Brads rules.


As do I.  Brad has only deleted one of my posts, although it was a hilarious one!
Quote:


I just like to point out that Bill’s worth his weight in gold.


Agreed.

Quote:


(Actually I am hoping against hope that eventually given enough time, this dear gentleman, will come up with the goods).



I would honestly like to know more about things that Bill discusses, but when pressed nothing ever seems to come of it....

Quote:


I know where they are, but you don’t expect me to find them for him do you?




Have you seen David Griesingers stuff wrt low frequency "envelopment?"

DC

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2005, 04:20:50 am »

Logged

HansP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2005, 09:06:07 am »

so it is all about theater (and meta-theater.. umm...) Rolling Eyes
Logged

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2005, 09:12:31 am »

Logged

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: A cool exersize of skills and opinions.
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2005, 10:52:59 pm »

Poyser wrote on Sat, 30 April 2005 01:20

David, I’m not aware of, and I haven’t seen anything new from David recently David, just stuff David wrote from a few years ago David.



Whew, we need to turn the echo-canceller on for those long distance calls.

Quote:


All frequencies have a role to play and are actually contributory to what is perceivable by the listener as ‘enveloping’. NOT just Bass sub frequencies.



Sure, but I think DG's point also had to do with the "transverse" wave and its supposed contribution.  In the concert hall.

Quote:


I actually would LOVE David to come in on this David. I kinda think he would tend to side with my views David.



I've never seen him in the forums, probably too busy.  I remember when Eric Benjamin of Dolby discussed j*tter on the Sursound list.  Or what happened to Erik from BF; guys who actually knew something............

Quote:


And if you were to accompany me to certain big stores I could show you stacks of returned (name brand) systems just laying around, gathering dust where people have returned them, completely dissapointed in their actual realism of performance.



Hoping to visit ol Blighty in Sept. and would love to take you up on your offer.

DC
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up