Level wrote on Tue, 26 April 2005 12:31 |
PS, you will never on a blind test, tell the difference from my MP3's and wav. No one, not even me, has done so. You get what you got. |
Level wrote on Tue, 26 April 2005 11:31 |
PS, you will never on a blind test, tell the difference from my MP3's and wav. No one, not even me, has done so. |
chrisj wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 16:05 |
Hey, it's a valid approach- your take on it did not sound anything like bad. I'm only saying that at least for me and Lee, what we got seemed like 'the worse' already, and screamed 'change me radically'. I didn't percieve that as mix decisions, it sounded to me like a relatively normal mix that had been dubbed onto cassettes 1000 times with the azimuth off. I understand that this changed it a lot, and if it was meant to sound like that, woopsy I'm all the more interested to see what Bill does, now. Does he go minimalist and treat the presentation as a set of mix choices, or does he do what me and Lee did, decide that it's a drum machine, bass, DX7 or something and voice- that he knows what those sound like- and break out the chainsaws and oxyacetylene torches to render the thing in a wildly different way? That's certainly what I was doing when I chose to EQ that radically (had to be 20 db of notch in a narrow spot in the midbass) and apply the expansion stuff. I was like 'this is a drum box, and a keyboard, and I know what this stuff sounds like' and I tried to dig that out from the mud of the source. Makes me wonder what would happen if we got some other posters to try their hands on this. Would they try to smooth the grunge out of the existing presentation, or re-imagine it into something more characteristic of them? In particular I'm curious how it strikes Brad, because the way the mud is shoveled onto this, it's like the Anti-Brad, it really is. Not only is it massive mud and no definition, it's phasey as hell and just about the opposite of his sound in every way. What would he do? I could see his take being closer to Lee's than mine or yours (Lee got some good clarity there), but without anything comby about it- but some of that is in the recording itself and has to be removed. Hmmmm... Bill? Same goes for you- are you preserving the presentation of this track like it was intentional, or are you treating it like it's covered with a ton of mud and making it strikingly different? |
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. |
HansP wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 22:44 |
an AI algorithm could do some more about the distortion, it needs to model the dolby behavior to get down to a reliable transfer curve (histogram inversion etc). |
Level wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 07:30 |
Chris, analog busses behave differenly at different levels and digital is also reported to change dynamics and frequency curve..depending on how hard it is pushed..but it is subjective and I have not seen any scientific data to really support that claim. |
Quote: |
We know...compression changes the FR curve. |
Poyser wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 13:09 |
Sigh.... As Well... |
Level wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 09:55 |
Sigh...... |
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. |
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. |
Quote: |
What if they tested Bill's I.Q. and found it's twice both of ours put together Dave? |
Quote: |
Perhaps this is the reason you 'struggle' with Bill's 'ground breaking' methods so? |
HansP wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 11:20 | ||
thx! so how is this one? 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. |
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. |
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. |
Poyser wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 15:14 |
Yes OK, I know what you both are saying, and I fully accept Brads rules. |
Quote: |
I just like to point out that Bill’s worth his weight in gold. |
Quote: |
(Actually I am hoping against hope that eventually given enough time, this dear gentleman, will come up with the goods). |
Quote: |
I know where they are, but you don’t expect me to find them for him do you? |
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. |
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. |
Quote: |
I actually would LOVE David to come in on this David. I kinda think he would tend to side with my views David. |
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. |
chrisj wrote on Sun, 01 May 2005 10:19 |
Well heck, any of you guys coming to New England in the fall, should come to southern Vermont and stop in for a visit. Bring cameras and time it for leaf-peeping season |
schley-may wrote on Sun, 01 May 2005 15:00 |
If anyone is still interested in the original intent of this thread, I've take a slightly different approach than I've seen discussed so far. analysis Using a 200Hz and 4KHz multiband split: Bass band has phase flipped on one channel, so does high band. You can see this from watching the band selected correlation meter. Mid band freqs were set around vocals (and synths). Vocals are phase correct, some of the synths are flipped. strategy used Split into separate tracks for each band. Flip polarity on bass R channel, narrow about half way to mono (using M/S). Leave phase alone on mid channel. This leaves vocals mono compatible, but some of the synths receed in mono. Better than the other way around. Bring left channel toward center a bit to even spread. Flip polarity on high band R channel. Use a little exciter on high band to brighten and (I think) mask some of the splatter. Mix three channels to taste. Final eq and about 2.5dB compression/boost. All eqs and band splits linear phase. Comments? Hey Jim, I am very much still interested in how one approaches tailoring this "maladjusted suit" to sound/fit it's best. I like what you have done here, and I appreciate you demonstrating some of your techniques as well. Cool approach. Lee |
chrisj wrote on Sun, 01 May 2005 14:59 |
Bellows Falls- out past Putney. If you're on 91 it'd go Brattleboro-Putney/Dummerston-BF. If you're in the area, drop me a line and stop by! |