| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Kadis wrote in
: But how about in the mastering stage? I'm editing an early music recorder CD that my brother is co-producing, Buxtehude and the like, and they are concerned with getting the volume of the CD up to "commercial" levels. I think we're going to need to use some clean limiting on that. But I wouldn't mess with the dynamics any more than that. I have never had to succumb to the "commercial equals loud" philosophy. One of the few advantages that classical recordings have in their favor is that they are the only format to still embrace full dynamics. The few rock recordings I have done have all been properly squashed. Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used expansion? I don't use expansion because I have such excellent noise reduction. Adobe Audition, when properly used, can reduce noise levels significantly. With a really good noise sample and very consistent background roar, I can reduce noise as much as 20 dB and not impact the recording. The usual victim of heavy NR (and downward expansion) is ambient reflection, which can be simulated with a bit of judicious reverb. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Kadis wrote in
: But how about in the mastering stage? I'm editing an early music recorder CD that my brother is co-producing, Buxtehude and the like, and they are concerned with getting the volume of the CD up to "commercial" levels. I think we're going to need to use some clean limiting on that. But I wouldn't mess with the dynamics any more than that. I have never had to succumb to the "commercial equals loud" philosophy. One of the few advantages that classical recordings have in their favor is that they are the only format to still embrace full dynamics. The few rock recordings I have done have all been properly squashed. Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used expansion? I don't use expansion because I have such excellent noise reduction. Adobe Audition, when properly used, can reduce noise levels significantly. With a really good noise sample and very consistent background roar, I can reduce noise as much as 20 dB and not impact the recording. The usual victim of heavy NR (and downward expansion) is ambient reflection, which can be simulated with a bit of judicious reverb. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote in
: I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. snip So, basically, it all gets down to where you want to introduce your "distortions" into the chain...the source, being the mike, or in the grinding of the sausage in post-pro, or in inherently "distinctive" electronics in the recording process. Same thing, only different. This is the reason we so many doofuses trying to use Ampex 300/350/351 chasses for "mike pres"...they're wanting a certain distortion and think that using an Ampex chassis just as a preamp will somehow give them that "Gold Star vintage sound." Durrrrrrrr.... I guess it's only a matter of degree. The "tape saturation" effect on my CraneSong has never been used, but its effect is as subtle as moving from the Schoeps mic to the BLUE. "But it's an effect!" Like the microphone isn't. When artists finally achieved true realism in paintings, they moved to impressionism. Perhaps I'm just opening my eyes to that view. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote in
: I'm still not buying into the idea of introducing any distortion into the recording chain, but I can see how the shimmer of an "interesting" microphone can add to an already good recording. snip So, basically, it all gets down to where you want to introduce your "distortions" into the chain...the source, being the mike, or in the grinding of the sausage in post-pro, or in inherently "distinctive" electronics in the recording process. Same thing, only different. This is the reason we so many doofuses trying to use Ampex 300/350/351 chasses for "mike pres"...they're wanting a certain distortion and think that using an Ampex chassis just as a preamp will somehow give them that "Gold Star vintage sound." Durrrrrrrr.... I guess it's only a matter of degree. The "tape saturation" effect on my CraneSong has never been used, but its effect is as subtle as moving from the Schoeps mic to the BLUE. "But it's an effect!" Like the microphone isn't. When artists finally achieved true realism in paintings, they moved to impressionism. Perhaps I'm just opening my eyes to that view. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message...
But how about in the mastering stage? I'm editing an early music recorder CD that my brother is co-producing, Buxtehude and the like, and they are concerned with getting the volume of the CD up to "commercial" levels. I think we're going to need to use some clean limiting on that. But I wouldn't mess with the dynamics any more than that. I would deal with this by manually adjusting overall levels. If you have particularly dynamic music, you can use long linear crossfades to adjust the level (ie 10 and 15 second fades) by several db. Because you aren't compressing or limiting, you maintain all of your transient information. The other option is to use some parallel compression to 'firm up" the lower dynamic levels while keeping your upper dynamics virtually untouched. Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used expansion? In a situation like this, I don't use expansion, but rather I'll bump the level as needed and on fades at ends of pieces and quiet sections, I'll use one of several techniques to deal with room noise. It ranges from EQ and replacement of room sound to selection audio restoration techniques in limited use... With the ability to do this non-destructively in Sequoia, it means I can fade in a restoration tool or extreme EQ over a period of time and not hear it kick in. --Ben -- Benjamin Maas Fifth Circle Audio Los Angeles, CA http://www.fifthcircle.com Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message...
But how about in the mastering stage? I'm editing an early music recorder CD that my brother is co-producing, Buxtehude and the like, and they are concerned with getting the volume of the CD up to "commercial" levels. I think we're going to need to use some clean limiting on that. But I wouldn't mess with the dynamics any more than that. I would deal with this by manually adjusting overall levels. If you have particularly dynamic music, you can use long linear crossfades to adjust the level (ie 10 and 15 second fades) by several db. Because you aren't compressing or limiting, you maintain all of your transient information. The other option is to use some parallel compression to 'firm up" the lower dynamic levels while keeping your upper dynamics virtually untouched. Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used expansion? In a situation like this, I don't use expansion, but rather I'll bump the level as needed and on fades at ends of pieces and quiet sections, I'll use one of several techniques to deal with room noise. It ranges from EQ and replacement of room sound to selection audio restoration techniques in limited use... With the ability to do this non-destructively in Sequoia, it means I can fade in a restoration tool or extreme EQ over a period of time and not hear it kick in. --Ben -- Benjamin Maas Fifth Circle Audio Los Angeles, CA http://www.fifthcircle.com Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:34:03 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote: I guess it's only a matter of degree. The "tape saturation" effect on my CraneSong has never been used, but its effect is as subtle as moving from the Schoeps mic to the BLUE. "But it's an effect!" Like the microphone isn't. When artists finally achieved true realism in paintings, they moved to impressionism. Perhaps I'm just opening my eyes to that view. snip Makes for a nice corollary, actually. But then, if it's true, does that make "rap-crap" the aural equivalent of cubism? LOL! dB |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:34:03 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote: I guess it's only a matter of degree. The "tape saturation" effect on my CraneSong has never been used, but its effect is as subtle as moving from the Schoeps mic to the BLUE. "But it's an effect!" Like the microphone isn't. When artists finally achieved true realism in paintings, they moved to impressionism. Perhaps I'm just opening my eyes to that view. snip Makes for a nice corollary, actually. But then, if it's true, does that make "rap-crap" the aural equivalent of cubism? LOL! dB |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:26:23 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote: I have never had to succumb to the "commercial equals loud" philosophy. One of the few advantages that classical recordings have in their favor is that they are the only format to still embrace full dynamics. The few rock recordings I have done have all been properly squashed. snip "Commercial equals loud" ruins any good serious recording of serious music, IMO. Part of the genre is the use of wide dynamic range, the exact antithesis of pop music, where a highly compressed drone is required to muddle the minds of its intended consumers. The classical listener pines for such range, one big reason they embraced CD-A in the '80s after initial resistance. However, a quartet of recorders playing Buxtehude recorded at full bore seems to be a bit of overkill, as does close micing of such instruments Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used expansion? snip I've recorded pipe organs in some really horrid background situations. Back in the tube Ampex days, you didn't worry about that too much; a lot of the traffic noise got buried in the hiss of Scotch 211, which, on an organ recording, easily fakes for wind noise. Now? Different proposition entirely. This actually started showing up when Ampex 456 and other low noise/high fluxivity oxides became the norm; as the noise floor dropped and the MOL rose, traffic "whoosh" and "sizzle" became obtrusive, making middle-of-the-night sessions an imperative, especially in venues in a downtown area, in which most large instruments are located. Worst noise invader of 'em all: traffic "sizzle" from wet streets. More than one such recording session would be "rained out" simply because of that, even in early AM sessions. There was simply no getting rid of it. Depending on the composition at hand and the registration eccentricities of the performer, some compression was going to happen anyway, due to the huge dynamic range of a large more-or-less romantic voiced organ in a reverberant church or hall. No matter how hard you tried, those 32' pedal flues would cause your Westons to peg at the most inopportune times, no matter how many times you did level checks with different registrations. Thus, some limiting would be used as a precautionary measure, but I never relied on compression per se, except for brief excursions into saturation. I don't use expansion because I have such excellent noise reduction. Adobe Audition, when properly used, can reduce noise levels significantly. With a really good noise sample and very consistent background roar, I can reduce noise as much as 20 dB and not impact the recording. The usual victim of heavy NR (and downward expansion) is ambient reflection, which can be simulated with a bit of judicious reverb. snip I've heard some recent digital classical recordings that seem to feature some kinds of expansion, and the ambient in the building seems to "pump" wildly if it's overdone, similar to a malfunctioning dbx box. "Mi no habla digital," so I'm at a loss to explain it away any more than that. dB |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:26:23 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote: I have never had to succumb to the "commercial equals loud" philosophy. One of the few advantages that classical recordings have in their favor is that they are the only format to still embrace full dynamics. The few rock recordings I have done have all been properly squashed. snip "Commercial equals loud" ruins any good serious recording of serious music, IMO. Part of the genre is the use of wide dynamic range, the exact antithesis of pop music, where a highly compressed drone is required to muddle the minds of its intended consumers. The classical listener pines for such range, one big reason they embraced CD-A in the '80s after initial resistance. However, a quartet of recorders playing Buxtehude recorded at full bore seems to be a bit of overkill, as does close micing of such instruments Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used expansion? snip I've recorded pipe organs in some really horrid background situations. Back in the tube Ampex days, you didn't worry about that too much; a lot of the traffic noise got buried in the hiss of Scotch 211, which, on an organ recording, easily fakes for wind noise. Now? Different proposition entirely. This actually started showing up when Ampex 456 and other low noise/high fluxivity oxides became the norm; as the noise floor dropped and the MOL rose, traffic "whoosh" and "sizzle" became obtrusive, making middle-of-the-night sessions an imperative, especially in venues in a downtown area, in which most large instruments are located. Worst noise invader of 'em all: traffic "sizzle" from wet streets. More than one such recording session would be "rained out" simply because of that, even in early AM sessions. There was simply no getting rid of it. Depending on the composition at hand and the registration eccentricities of the performer, some compression was going to happen anyway, due to the huge dynamic range of a large more-or-less romantic voiced organ in a reverberant church or hall. No matter how hard you tried, those 32' pedal flues would cause your Westons to peg at the most inopportune times, no matter how many times you did level checks with different registrations. Thus, some limiting would be used as a precautionary measure, but I never relied on compression per se, except for brief excursions into saturation. I don't use expansion because I have such excellent noise reduction. Adobe Audition, when properly used, can reduce noise levels significantly. With a really good noise sample and very consistent background roar, I can reduce noise as much as 20 dB and not impact the recording. The usual victim of heavy NR (and downward expansion) is ambient reflection, which can be simulated with a bit of judicious reverb. snip I've heard some recent digital classical recordings that seem to feature some kinds of expansion, and the ambient in the building seems to "pump" wildly if it's overdone, similar to a malfunctioning dbx box. "Mi no habla digital," so I'm at a loss to explain it away any more than that. dB |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote in
news 
Makes for a nice corollary, actually. But then, if it's true, does that make "rap-crap" the aural equivalent of cubism? LOL! Hmmm. Andy Warhol meets P Diddy. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote in
news
Makes for a nice corollary, actually. But then, if it's true, does that make "rap-crap" the aural equivalent of cubism? LOL! Hmmm. Andy Warhol meets P Diddy. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
I understand and agree with compression and EQ when creating a mix. Do you
agree that, given an agreeable source, they aren't necessary in a solo stereo setting? BRBR I agree it's a decision you make on a case by case basis, based on the client's artistic intent. Scott Fraser |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
I understand and agree with compression and EQ when creating a mix. Do you
agree that, given an agreeable source, they aren't necessary in a solo stereo setting? BRBR I agree it's a decision you make on a case by case basis, based on the client's artistic intent. Scott Fraser |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part of the genre is the use of wide dynamic range, snip The
classical listener pines for such range, BRBR Yes, but does the listener have the same dynamic range available in the playback situation? What the philosophical purist won't admit to is that a peak level which exceeds the average level by 20db has the same perceived dynamic impact as a peak that exceeds the average by 25db. One of these gives your average level a fighting chance, though. Scott Fraser |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Part of the genre is the use of wide dynamic range, snip The
classical listener pines for such range, BRBR Yes, but does the listener have the same dynamic range available in the playback situation? What the philosophical purist won't admit to is that a peak level which exceeds the average level by 20db has the same perceived dynamic impact as a peak that exceeds the average by 25db. One of these gives your average level a fighting chance, though. Scott Fraser |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Makes for a nice corollary, actually. But then, if it's true, does
that make "rap-crap" the aural equivalent of cubism? BRBR No, cubism has artistic merit. Rap is more like the graphic art used to depict meat in supermarket ads. Scott Fraser |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Makes for a nice corollary, actually. But then, if it's true, does
that make "rap-crap" the aural equivalent of cubism? BRBR No, cubism has artistic merit. Rap is more like the graphic art used to depict meat in supermarket ads. Scott Fraser |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic. BRBR
There are many details of instrumental articulation that are only perceived in close proximity to the instrument. They are not audible in the middle of a concert hall, yet we consider concert hall sound "realistic". That which is audible only near the player could be deemed "hyper-realistic". Scott Fraser |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic. BRBR
There are many details of instrumental articulation that are only perceived in close proximity to the instrument. They are not audible in the middle of a concert hall, yet we consider concert hall sound "realistic". That which is audible only near the player could be deemed "hyper-realistic". Scott Fraser |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Kadis wrote:
I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic. The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix. But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room. I submit Tony Furtado's _Tony Furtado Band_, with production and engineering by Cookie Marenco as an example of audio-musical hyper-realism. -- ha |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jay Kadis wrote:
I guess I'm really asking how you define hyper-realistic. The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix. But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room. I submit Tony Furtado's _Tony Furtado Band_, with production and engineering by Cookie Marenco as an example of audio-musical hyper-realism. -- ha |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:52:18 -0500, ScotFraser wrote
(in article ): All that stuff is a myth about the size of Lake Erie. BRBR I didn't know there was a myth concerning the size of Lake Erie. Is it not as big as everybody contends? g Scott Fraser It depends on from which shore you begin to count; something about the exchange rate differences in the US and Canada. Regards Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:52:18 -0500, ScotFraser wrote
(in article ): All that stuff is a myth about the size of Lake Erie. BRBR I didn't know there was a myth concerning the size of Lake Erie. Is it not as big as everybody contends? g Scott Fraser It depends on from which shore you begin to count; something about the exchange rate differences in the US and Canada. Regards Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:44:47 -0800, Jay Kadis
wrote: The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix. But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room. snip Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG! It's not "hyper-anything" except "hyper-compressed!" It's not realistic at all; in fact, far from it. It's the modern-day equivalent of Top 40 AM radio with 25 dB of compression, nothing more. If it were ANY kind of "realistic," those "subtle details" would be way down in the grass, where they're SUPPOSED to be. THAT'S realism. Compressing the hell out of everything is an attempt to DEFEAT realism, to make the track something it's not. Same basic musical ethics as Milli Vanilli or Enrique Iglesias. Simply, a fraud. I heard all this same stuff back in the early '70s when guys were compressing every track on a 48 channel mix "so each part can stand out." If they'd have gotten their noses out of the coke long enough to LISTEN, they'd have realized that all they created was flavored pink noise, where EVERYTHING is competing for attention with everything else. No depth, no dynamicism, no anything but high level NOISE. The more things change, I swear, the more they stay the same. Want it to sound good in a car? Fine, compress away, but don't try to pawn it off as any sort of "realism." So, call it "hyper-compression"..."hyper-clipping"...whatever. Just don't show me a moldy melted cheese sandwich and try to tell me it's the Virgin Mary, because I'm NOT buyin' it, even for the opening bid. dB |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
Jay Kadis wrote: The flushing up of the low-amplitude sonic details by compression and limiting and judicious spectral tweeking with EQ make the sound realistic in the sense that you can hear the details of the sounds even when they would have otherwise been masked in a complicated mix. But it's not what you would hear in the tracking room. snip Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG! It's not "hyper-anything" except "hyper-compressed!" It's not realistic at all; in fact, far from it. You are waging your argument on ****ty Top 40 "music". Jay, who happens to be stoutly informed about human perception mechanisms as well as keenly aware of musical issues, is talking about something else. And that is why I referenced the Tony Furtado recording. It is an example of what he is talking about, and though it's hotter than a redneck at a mud****ing contest, it doesn't _sound_ hyper-compressed. Cookie's work on it is damn sharp. -- ha |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Mics, amplifiers, speakers and processors for sale in liquidation of production inventory | Pro Audio | |||
| How to clean 1/8" headphone jack? | Tech | |||
| Clean Power? | Car Audio | |||
| FS: vintage Luxman receiver, clean and sounds great, cheap! | Tech | |||
| Problem with "Clean Plus" | General | |||
Linear Mode
