[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,
Ray

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message ...
I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,
Ray

Okey dokey.... from your favorite left-field nutter.... ;-)

First, a serious peak limiter, like an Aphex Dominator... then
a dose of SPX-90 or 90-II, patch 23, for some spread if you
need size or more of them. Blend with the dry. Eq away the
'spikey' that's more frequency oriented; the Dominator will
handle the real transients. After that, you can pretty much
make them anything you want them to be, from subdued
and narrow under a little room verb; to big, wide, and artificial
as heck... whatever the mix calls for.

Cheers,

DM








--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from

These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.

http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3


Cheers,

DM

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:25:19 GMT, "Ray Thomas"
wrote:

I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,
Ray


Put the mic further away from them?

[Don P.]

Laurence Payne scribbled:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:25:19 GMT, "Ray Thomas"
wrote:

I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit
from to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and
slide guitars and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and
jumpy', drawing attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context.
Thanks for your advice,
Ray


Put the mic further away from them?


Tie their hands together?

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

Thanks Dave, I can see what you mean about getting it to sit back in the
mix...and maybe the limiting took a lot of the percussive energy out and
softened the attack, making it duller, less 'snare-like' in attack, which s
exactly what I'm after. The SPX puts a bit more realism back in after the
fact I think. A good example, thank you...much appreciated !
Ray

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in message
news:ITOsk.850$w51.831@trnddc01...

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from

These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.

http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3


Cheers,

DM

[Mark]

On Aug 26, 7:23*am, "Ray Thomas" wrote:
Thanks Dave, I can see what you mean about getting it to sit back in the
mix...and maybe the limiting took a lot of the percussive energy out and
softened the attack, making it *duller, less 'snare-like' in attack, which s
exactly what I'm after. The SPX puts a bit more realism back in after the
fact I think. A good example, thank you...much appreciated !
Ray

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in messagenews:ITOsk.850$w51.831@trnddc01...





"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from

These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.

http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3

Cheers,

DM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


just let the spikes clip.... yes clip...

the dreaded digital clipping is not that bad for short spikes like a
handclap...

that will actually do the least damage to the rest of the sound

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Ray Thomas wrote:
I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,

How were they recorded?

I have a tendency to record them with a figure-8 ribbon in most cases.
It smooths off the transient a little bit, and helps you avoid slap echo
problems from the floor and ceiling.

The problem with most handclap recordings is that they have slap echo in
them, rather than a nice soft decaying reverb. You can always add reverb
to smooth things out, but you can't take it away.

Rolling off the top end and adding some reverb can help a close-sounding
track.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message
...
I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide
guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,

I like to record them with a dynamic mic like an E-V RE15 or RE20 (but I
prefer the 15).

Peace,
Paul

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message ...
Thanks Dave, I can see what you mean about getting it to sit back in the
mix...and maybe the limiting took a lot of the percussive energy out and
softened the attack, making it duller, less 'snare-like' in attack, which s
exactly what I'm after. The SPX puts a bit more realism back in after the
fact I think. A good example, thank you...much appreciated !
Ray

With the Dominator, you can choose which part of the frequency
spectrum gets the most attention in limiting... so 'dull' is a very
approachable option by setting. In the sample I posted, most
of the dulling was done with eq and the limiting was fairly broadband.
I just did this a couple of weeks ago, but that's my usual treatment
for handclaps and has been for 20-plus years... be they buried in
a pop mix like this one, or up front in a gospel mix with less effect.

Had there been five or six people doing the clapping, the SPX
might have been unecessary, but by the same token, could have
made the claps sound more like a choir of people depending on
the parameter settings. Any delay line with stereo returns would
do the same thing, but I like the tiny amounts of pitch in patch 23
of the SPX because that artificially makes for the sound of human
inaccuracies in the timing of the claps, and gives you options for
the degree of 'space' you want the claps to cover and the apparent
density of the claps.

Cheers,

DM


"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in message
news:ITOsk.850$w51.831@trnddc01...

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from

These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.

http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3


Cheers,

DM

[hank alrich]

Mark wrote:

On Aug 26, 7:23 am, "Ray Thomas" wrote:
Thanks Dave, I can see what you mean about getting it to sit back in the
mix...and maybe the limiting took a lot of the percussive energy out and
softened the attack, making it duller, less 'snare-like' in attack, which s
exactly what I'm after. The SPX puts a bit more realism back in after the
fact I think. A good example, thank you...much appreciated !
Ray

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote





"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from

These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.

http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3

Cheers,

DM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


just let the spikes clip.... yes clip...

the dreaded digital clipping is not that bad for short spikes like a
handclap...

that will actually do the least damage to the rest of the sound

Mark

I strongly disagree with that approach as a general panacea for
handclaps. As a special effect in a song thast sucks, okay. Otherwise,
just stay the **** away from clipping. Let 'em go there and you've left
them out of control. That's not how I'd want anybody to mix something of
mine.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[david correia]

In article ,
"Ray Thomas" wrote:

I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,
Ray



Mix in someone clapping 2 pieces of wood together (instead of their
hands) and then mix that in with the real handclaps. Old school trick.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Mark]

On Aug 27, 12:31*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Aug 26, 7:23 am, "Ray Thomas" wrote:
Thanks Dave, I can see what you mean about getting it to sit back in the
mix...and maybe the limiting took a lot of the percussive energy out and
softened the attack, making it *duller, less 'snare-like' in attack, which s
exactly what I'm after. The SPX puts a bit more realism back in after the
fact I think. A good example, thank you...much appreciated !
Ray

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message

more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from

These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.

http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3

Cheers,

DM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

just let the spikes clip.... *yes clip...

the dreaded digital clipping is not that bad for short spikes like a
handclap...

that will actually do the least damage to the rest of the sound

Mark

I strongly disagree with that approach as a general panacea for
handclaps. As a special effect in a song thast sucks, okay. Otherwise,
just stay the **** away from clipping. Let 'em go there and you've left
them out of control. That's not how I'd want anybody to mix something of
mine.


My assumption here is that the hand claps are recorded on the same
track as the vocals. If my assumption is wrong and the claps are
isolated on their own track, then in that case I agree with the other
suggestions of EQ and compression etc.

But if indeed the claps are not isolated but instead are on the same
track as the vocals then....


Clipping is a "special effect" that will lower the peak value of the
hand clap transient with no change to vocals.

Compression and EQ are also "special effects" that will have an impact
also on the vocals.

The OPs desire was to get the claps to fit better into the mix,
clipping them will do that with the least impact to the vocals
recorded on the same track.

Mark

[Greg Boboski]

overdub/ double them 5 times or so ,
may depend on whether you want them to sound
good or real ......or real good , try a little comp to taste on the
overall trk

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message
...
I await the Collective Wisdom's response on how they should be dealt
with....and even more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
to sit more comfortably in a mix against vocals, acoustic and slide guitars
and tambourine. Unprocessed they seem a bit 'spiky and jumpy', drawing
attention to themselves unduly in a whole mix context. Thanks for your
advice,
Ray

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message...

On Aug 27, 12:31 am, (hank alrich) wrote:

Mark wrote:

just let the spikes clip.... yes clip...

Mark

I strongly disagree with that approach as a general panacea for
handclaps. As a special effect in a song that sucks, okay. Otherwise,
just stay the **** away from clipping. Let 'em go there and you've left
them out of control. That's not how I'd want anybody to mix something
of mine.

My assumption here is that the hand claps are recorded on the same
track as the vocals. If my assumption is wrong and the claps are
isolated on their own track, then in that case I agree with the other
suggestions of EQ and compression etc.

Even if they were on the same track as vocals, we're talking about a
fairly instantaneous transient here (on the order of 3 to 10 ms) that's
not only probably on the order of 5 times the level of the nearest
vocal peak, but is remarkably simple to remove with a peak limiter
without affecting anything, even slightly, below the applied threshold.

But if indeed the claps are not isolated but instead are on the same
track as the vocals then....

Clipping is a "special effect" that will lower the peak value of the
hand clap transient with no change to vocals.

I disagree. You aren't "lowering" anything here at all... essentially
you are doing nothing more than exceeding the maximum recordable
level. That's not lowering the peak value of anything, it's hacking off
the top of the transient resulting in a square wave of continuous full-
scale voltage..... it's also referred to as ruining a recorded track.
"Clipping" (unless you're on software that purposely shows a clip
indicator before 0dBFS is actually reached) is simply square wave
distortion that is in no way a "special effect". It's more of a pure
psycho-acoustical nightmare of trying to figure out why one's ears
are ringing at the end of a song.

For goodness sake... that's the whole reason for the onslaught of all
of those extra "marketing" bits.... so that one can be sloppy with their
recording levels -in the *downward* direction- in order to avoid clipping
in the digital domain. There's no reason to exceed maximum possible
recording values, even at 16 bits, let alone 20 or 24.

Compression and EQ are also "special effects" that will have an
impact also on the vocals.

In most cases, compression would likely never be able to have a
fast enough attack time to catch such a transient anyway, and yes,
would result in pumping the remainder of the track if used in a
case like this (IF the claps share a vocal track). A good peak
limiter however, can go completely un-noticed.

One can't deny that either of those *can* be used as 'special
effects', but that's the exception to the norm and not the rule.
Compression and EQ should both normally have a transparent
end result.

The OPs desire was to get the claps to fit better into the mix,
clipping them will do that with the least impact to the vocals
recorded on the same track.

Sorry Mark... but intentionally allowing a signal to exceed 0dBFS
either during recording, and/or *absolutely* during a mix, is just
one of those industry no-nos. True enough, the short duration of
such a transient would likely not get your mix bounced from the
mastering house for too many consecutive, continuously clipped
samples, but the end result will still be a very nasty fact of reality
whether it is overtly audible or not. Allowing anyone to believe that
this is an acceptable course of action is simply not advisable.
Such 'accidents' during the recording process may be somewhat
tolerable, but during a mix they are absolutely NOT allowed into the
game plan.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
Mark wrote:

On Aug 26, 7:23 am, "Ray Thomas" wrote:
Thanks Dave, I can see what you mean about getting it to sit back in the
mix...and maybe the limiting took a lot of the percussive energy out and
softened the attack, making it duller, less 'snare-like' in attack, which s
exactly what I'm after. The SPX puts a bit more realism back in after the
fact I think. A good example, thank you...much appreciated !
Ray

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote





"Ray Thomas" wrote in message
more specifically on what treatment they can benefit from
These were generated from only two female singers clapping together
in just one mono pass; not meant to be much more than comedic in
context of the tune and they're pretty much buried.... but if you throw
on some phones you can pick up on the effectiveness of the SPX
stereo returns being added to the dry track.
http://www.m-a-m-s.com/MP3/Claps.mp3
Cheers,
DM- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

just let the spikes clip.... yes clip...

the dreaded digital clipping is not that bad for short spikes like a
handclap...

that will actually do the least damage to the rest of the sound

Mark

I strongly disagree with that approach as a general panacea for
handclaps. As a special effect in a song thast sucks, okay. Otherwise,
just stay the **** away from clipping. Let 'em go there and you've left
them out of control. That's not how I'd want anybody to mix something of
mine.


If somebody positively absolutely had to have handclaps, I would
first reach for a ROMpler playback of them, which has
already been sliced and diced.

Second choice would be a loop of one live handclap,
gated with added reverb as required...

Both can be executed without the performers in the studio
too much, keeping the flow going...

But then again, fairly complex MIDI temp maps don't scare
me none.....

--
Les Cargill

[Mark]

In most cases, compression would likely never be able to have a
fast enough attack time to catch such a transient anyway, and yes,
would result in pumping the remainder of the track if used in a
case like this (IF the claps share a vocal track). *A good peak
limiter however, can go completely un-noticed.

Yes exactly....especially if the peak limiter has very fast attack
and very fast decay times.. i.e. less than a few ms in which case the
limiter is essentially the same as clipping..

You can clip the transients in the isolated track then mix it into
the mix at a lower level so there is nothing hitting 0 dBfs in the
finished product...

Mark

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote

In most cases, compression would likely never be able to have a
fast enough attack time to catch such a transient anyway, and yes,
would result in pumping the remainder of the track if used in a
case like this (IF the claps share a vocal track). A good peak
limiter however, can go completely un-noticed.

Yes exactly....especially if the peak limiter has very fast attack
and very fast decay times.. i.e. less than a few ms in which case the
limiter is essentially the same as clipping..

I don't think so, Mark.

A good limiter will NOT leave a resultant flat-topped wave at full scale.

Close in the waveform department perhaps, but not the same end
result at all. I'm talking about the hardware world here for the most
part, but perhaps some of the 'plug-in' limiters will hack perfectly flat
the tops of transients, yet I haven't noticed that on any of the software
limiters that I tend to occasionally use. Attempting to exceed 0dBFS
however, *will* leave a perfectly flat, full scale voltage for the duration
of the 'excess time' as a result.

You can clip the transients in the isolated track then mix it into
the mix at a lower level so there is nothing hitting 0 dBfs in the
finished product...

I'd be embarrassed to pass that work along to any other professional.

I don't recommend it. There are still perceivable results... not always
obvious, but like I mentioned before... one can be left wondering why
their ears are ringing or have a general feeling of 'fatigue' after listening
to what they *thought* was a smooth mix at a modest playback level.
Poor mastering can have the same psycho-acoustic bad results for
the listener.

Personally, I'd never record a clap track (or any other fast transient
material) without doing a lengthy enough check to assure proper levels,
or tossing a hardware limiter on the track for peak protection purposes
to begin with - usually both.

Please, bro.... don't encourage poor recording technique. :-)

At 24 bits, only a rash accident should encroach on full-scale.



--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

Just to clarify, the clap track was separately recorded to its own dedicated
track (analog in fact, on a 16 track 1" Otari with Ampex 456) and levels
weren't slammed during recording, though it could be argued that it's gone
through some mild form of 'tape limiting' already just due to the
medium....however I transferred the 16 track analog to Reaper at 16 bit 44.1
because the studio had to be dismantled and relocated...long story.....
hence the computer mixdown. So thus far at least, the treatment of the claps
has been pretty old-school exemplary ;-)
Ray

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in message
news:hJqtk.935$p72.277@trnddc05...

"Mark" wrote in message...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote

In most cases, compression would likely never be able to have a
fast enough attack time to catch such a transient anyway, and yes,
would result in pumping the remainder of the track if used in a
case like this (IF the claps share a vocal track). A good peak
limiter however, can go completely un-noticed.

Yes exactly....especially if the peak limiter has very fast attack
and very fast decay times.. i.e. less than a few ms in which case the
limiter is essentially the same as clipping..

I don't think so, Mark.

A good limiter will NOT leave a resultant flat-topped wave at full scale.

Close in the waveform department perhaps, but not the same end
result at all. I'm talking about the hardware world here for the most
part, but perhaps some of the 'plug-in' limiters will hack perfectly flat
the tops of transients, yet I haven't noticed that on any of the software
limiters that I tend to occasionally use. Attempting to exceed 0dBFS
however, *will* leave a perfectly flat, full scale voltage for the
duration
of the 'excess time' as a result.

You can clip the transients in the isolated track then mix it into
the mix at a lower level so there is nothing hitting 0 dBfs in the
finished product...

I'd be embarrassed to pass that work along to any other professional.

I don't recommend it. There are still perceivable results... not always
obvious, but like I mentioned before... one can be left wondering why
their ears are ringing or have a general feeling of 'fatigue' after
listening
to what they *thought* was a smooth mix at a modest playback level.
Poor mastering can have the same psycho-acoustic bad results for
the listener.

Personally, I'd never record a clap track (or any other fast transient
material) without doing a lengthy enough check to assure proper levels,
or tossing a hardware limiter on the track for peak protection purposes
to begin with - usually both.

Please, bro.... don't encourage poor recording technique. :-)

At 24 bits, only a rash accident should encroach on full-scale.



--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[Federico]

For goodness sake... that's the whole reason for the onslaught of all
of those extra "marketing" bits.... so that one can be sloppy with their
recording levels -in the *downward* direction- in order to avoid clipping
in the digital domain. There's no reason to exceed maximum possible
recording values, even at 16 bits, let alone 20 or 24.


I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Federico" wrote in message...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote

For goodness sake... that's the whole reason for the onslaught of all
of those extra "marketing" bits.... so that one can be sloppy with their
recording levels -in the *downward* direction- in order to avoid clipping
in the digital domain. There's no reason to exceed maximum possible
recording values, even at 16 bits, let alone 20 or 24.

I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.


Then we live in two very different worlds and have two somewhat
opposing definitions of "effects".

Somehow, in my 22+ years in the digital domain, I seem to have
missed that lively "trend."

Happily, I might add. ;-)


DM

[Don Pearce]

Federico wrote:
For goodness sake... that's the whole reason for the onslaught of all
of those extra "marketing" bits.... so that one can be sloppy with their
recording levels -in the *downward* direction- in order to avoid clipping
in the digital domain. There's no reason to exceed maximum possible
recording values, even at 16 bits, let alone 20 or 24.


I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.


The problem with digital domain clipping is that it undoes all the good
work of the anti-alias filter and creates non-harmonic crap all over the
audio band. It can, with care, be used to lop the tops off transients,
but frankly there are better ways to do this.

d

[Mark]

I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.

The problem with digital domain clipping is that it undoes all the good
work of the anti-alias filter and creates non-harmonic crap all over the
audio band.

Only for the duration of the very short transient which is on the
order of 1 ms and after all, that is what a transient is in the first
place, a wideband spectrum of very short duration. So clipping a
transient will change the loudness of the transient which is what you
want it to do. It may also change the character of the transient and
that may or may not be good. But, unlike compression or limiting,
clipping will not change any parts of the sound immediately before or
after the transient itself..

It can, with care, be used to lop the tops off transients,
but frankly there are better ways to do this.

d

So it seems we are in agreement after all because that is what we are
talking about here..loping the tops off very short transient hand
claps that are on the order of a ms in duration...

I totally agree with you that clipping for any extended duration is
very bad.

Mark

[Don Pearce]

 Mark wrote:
I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.
The problem with digital domain clipping is that it undoes all the good
work of the anti-alias filter and creates non-harmonic crap all over the
audio band.

Only for the duration of the very short transient which is on the
order of 1 ms and after all, that is what a transient is in the first
place, a wideband spectrum of very short duration. So clipping a
transient will change the loudness of the transient which is what you
want it to do. It may also change the character of the transient and
that may or may not be good. But, unlike compression or limiting,
clipping will not change any parts of the sound immediately before or
after the transient itself..

It can, with care, be used to lop the tops off transients,
but frankly there are better ways to do this.

d

So it seems we are in agreement after all because that is what we are
talking about here..loping the tops off very short transient hand
claps that are on the order of a ms in duration...

I totally agree with you that clipping for any extended duration is
very bad.

Mark



Fair enough, but the remark of yours I was replying to seemed to be far
more all-embracing than just a way of tackling transients.

d

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce wrote:

 Mark wrote:

F. The problem with digital domain clipping is that it undoes all the
good work of the anti-alias filter and creates non-harmonic crap all
over the audio band.

Only for the duration of the very short transient which is on the
order of 1 ms and after all, that is what a transient is in the first
place, a wideband spectrum of very short duration. So clipping a
transient will change the loudness of the transient which is what you
want it to do. It may also change the character of the transient and
that may or may not be good. But, unlike compression or limiting,
clipping will not change any parts of the sound immediately before or
after the transient itself..

It can, with care, be used to lop the tops off transients,
but frankly there are better ways to do this.

d

So it seems we are in agreement after all because that is what we are
talking about here..loping the tops off very short transient hand
claps that are on the order of a ms in duration...

I totally agree with you that clipping for any extended duration is
very bad.

Mark



Fair enough, but the remark of yours I was replying to seemed to be far
more all-embracing than just a way of tackling transients.

d

And even that short clip injects all kinds of crap, even if briefly.

There are just so many good ways to deal with dynamic range that do not
include that. I don't call what happens with a good peak limiter
properly set "lopping the tops off" of transients. Properly handled the
resulting waveforms looking nothing like the flat-topped results offered
by attempting to exceed 0 dBFS.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Federico wrote:

For goodness sake... that's the whole reason for the onslaught of all
of those extra "marketing" bits.... so that one can be sloppy with their
recording levels -in the *downward* direction- in order to avoid clipping
in the digital domain. There's no reason to exceed maximum possible
recording values, even at 16 bits, let alone 20 or 24.


I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.

By people with callused ears who have little or no idea of the
consequences fo their actions.

We are deluged with "music" that has been treated that way, even
sometimes in "mastering", and the results beget the ubiquitous
complaints about the lifeless sound that comes therefrom.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Federico wrote:

For goodness sake... that's the whole reason for the onslaught of all
of those extra "marketing" bits.... so that one can be sloppy with their
recording levels -in the *downward* direction- in order to avoid clipping
in the digital domain. There's no reason to exceed maximum possible
recording values, even at 16 bits, let alone 20 or 24.

I disagree.
Intentionally clipping in digital domain have been a widely used effect for
years.
F.

It's true, but people have been doing all kinds of stupid things for years.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Ray Thomas wrote:

Just to clarify, the clap track was separately recorded to its own dedicated
track (analog in fact, on a 16 track 1" Otari with Ampex 456) and levels
weren't slammed during recording, though it could be argued that it's gone
through some mild form of 'tape limiting' already just due to the
medium....however I transferred the 16 track analog to Reaper at 16 bit 44.1
because the studio had to be dismantled and relocated...long story.....
hence the computer mixdown. So thus far at least, the treatment of the claps
has been pretty old-school exemplary ;-)
Ray

I commend you, sir! g

Thing is if you keep them clean as you can while controlling their
dynamic range you have a much better chance of thickening them, etc.,
and getting something with the impact you want.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mark]

Just to clarify, the clap track was separately recorded to its own dedicated
track

Then I have to agree, if the clap track is isolated, there are better
options for it then clipping.

Mark

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message ...

Just to clarify, the clap track was separately recorded to its own dedicated
track

Then I have to agree, if the clap track is isolated, there are better
options for it then clipping.

Mark


There are **always** better options than clipping digital. ;-)

DM