Mike Rivers wrote:

walkinaywrites:

I think the biggest lesson here, and not just for you but for
all of us when facing work in a strange room (which might also be a
weird room), is a contract clause giving you the authority to place into
or remove from the signal chain any piece of kit you wish to use/not
use.

"I don't think that wall is doing us any good. Let's take it out."

Fine, I'll get the chainsaw and the tractor; this'll only take a coupla
minutes.

(Easier than fixing a lawn mower...)

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

walkinaywrites:

I think the biggest lesson here, and not just for you but for
all of us when facing work in a strange room (which might also be a
weird room), is a contract clause giving you the authority to place into
or remove from the signal chain any piece of kit you wish to use/not
use.

"I don't think that wall is doing us any good. Let's take it out."

Fine, I'll get the chainsaw and the tractor; this'll only take a coupla
minutes.

(Easier than fixing a lawn mower...)

--
ha

David Morgan wrote:

Had I owned the place, I wouldn't have even
*considered* leaving the room until the visiting engineer was totally at
ease. There were way too many $$$ in equipment there to sluff of the
possiblity of damage or misuse. Being handed the manuals by the
owner of a well paid studio at the end of a cross-country flight was
waaay more of a shocker than the bad transfer.

There is one of the biggest issues in this deal: a dilettante studio
"owner". Anybody can buy gear. Gear doesn't make a studio, all
advertising aside.

--
ha

David Morgan wrote:

Had I owned the place, I wouldn't have even
*considered* leaving the room until the visiting engineer was totally at
ease. There were way too many $$$ in equipment there to sluff of the
possiblity of damage or misuse. Being handed the manuals by the
owner of a well paid studio at the end of a cross-country flight was
waaay more of a shocker than the bad transfer.

There is one of the biggest issues in this deal: a dilettante studio
"owner". Anybody can buy gear. Gear doesn't make a studio, all
advertising aside.

--
ha

Multiband did wonders on a 5 way split on my system when playing around with
the sample. I think that applying 8 to 10 splits with judicious finely
applied cuts and boosts would go a long way toward righting a lot of the
problems.


Doug Joyce
animix Productions
Durango, CO



"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

What I'm hearing in those tracks is not any kind of 'soft limiting'
I've ever
driven. More like a diode clipper (on the affected frequency range.)

It would appear to me that everything between around 1.6K up to 5K+ is
squashed. If I crank the level, it's not too bad... but there's no way
that
the average listener of swing will do that.

Any other input is appreciated.

Have you tried using multiband dynamics set to expand the afflicted range?

Is there overt clipping on that range? I'm wondering if something like
Samplitude's declipper might help...

Multiband did wonders on a 5 way split on my system when playing around with
the sample. I think that applying 8 to 10 splits with judicious finely
applied cuts and boosts would go a long way toward righting a lot of the
problems.


Doug Joyce
animix Productions
Durango, CO



"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

What I'm hearing in those tracks is not any kind of 'soft limiting'
I've ever
driven. More like a diode clipper (on the affected frequency range.)

It would appear to me that everything between around 1.6K up to 5K+ is
squashed. If I crank the level, it's not too bad... but there's no way
that
the average listener of swing will do that.

Any other input is appreciated.

Have you tried using multiband dynamics set to expand the afflicted range?

Is there overt clipping on that range? I'm wondering if something like
Samplitude's declipper might help...

In article ,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" wrote:

I need some serious help here....

Regulars probably know something about how my reluctance to dive into
all digital HD recording has impeded my experience level. cough-cough


We all have to jump in sometime! (well, MOST of us...)


I won't take the time to re-hash the entire experience unless asked, but it
has come to my attention that the resulting mixes all suffer from a serious
loss of upper mid & lower high frequency content, as well as a mushiness
to the low end, and that this may have been caused by clocking or other
sync oriented issues.


Not a digital sync issue.


After requesting the original ADATs and re-mixing one song here at home,
I think there may have been serious problems with the interfacing and likely
my operation of the gear. I'd appreciate any input from folks with
experience
in these matters, as could pertain to this frequency loss which was invisible
in the studio.

Please keep in mind that in the re-mix, I made no attempt to add clarity in
any shape, form or fashion. I tried to use the same cut-only EQ schemes
and cut considerably more high end than I did in the all digi studio.



Well, since the remix is considerably brighter than the first mix, and
if you cut MORE highs during the remix, than it seems while printing the
mixes you lost at least 8 or 9 dB of top end!

I've never myself used the "mastering" functions of the Masterlink, but
I'm pretty sure that they're all non-realtime processes. The Masterlink
needs to rewrite the audio to a new "rendered" playlist before it can
burn the CD, and as that will take a fair amount of time, I believe you
would be aware that something was amiss when time came to make your CDs.

So more than likely the Finalizer is the main (if not the only) culprit
here.

There are 5 "blocks" of processing in the Finalizers that I've used, and
if you're not looking at the main page (and know what the display is
actually trying to show!) you could have had any, all, or none of them
active.

Any of the degradation that others here mention the Finalizer having in
"bypass" would be pretty subtle, so something must surely have been
active, and in significant amount.

From your mp3s, it sounds as if the EQ block was on, with a fairly heavy
EQ curve dialed in.

Also, looking at the lissajous scope I can see artifacts of what appears
to be a moderate amount of limiting going on. It's not a hard limiter on
the overall program, but seems like perhaps the midband limiter was
getting hit, or the midband compressor (a different "block"!) was set to
a high ratio and getting hit.

I think, though, that a good mastering engineer will be able to do a lot
to help this out. It may not end up with as much openness and
transparency as you'd originally wanted, but should be quite acceptable,
and frankly most listeners will probably not even be aware of any
"issues" (unless there are more obnoxious passages than that which you
posted). Most pop music CDs have MUCH more egregious limiting and/or
clipping going on...though I can't speak for the current state of the
art in this genre (way outside my particular niche!).

I am puzzled though...if there was THAT much HF loss going on through
the Finalizer (or in the Masterlink), I can't imagine that you wouldn't
have been able to hear the difference on the 2-track playback, even
despite the 5 or 6 dB monitor level difference you mentioned in another
post!

And that 6 dB difference is itself quite suspicious, since a digital
output from the Masterlink should come back to the boards digital
returns at the same level that went in (once you allow for the voodoo
the Finalizer did). Somethings rotten in the state of Montana.... Or was
it coming back on an analog tape return?

Get thee to a mastering house and see where that it takes you!


Jeff C

--
Anti-Spam email address in effect.
My real email should be pretty obvious to an actual human being.

In article ,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" wrote:

I need some serious help here....

Regulars probably know something about how my reluctance to dive into
all digital HD recording has impeded my experience level. cough-cough


We all have to jump in sometime! (well, MOST of us...)


I won't take the time to re-hash the entire experience unless asked, but it
has come to my attention that the resulting mixes all suffer from a serious
loss of upper mid & lower high frequency content, as well as a mushiness
to the low end, and that this may have been caused by clocking or other
sync oriented issues.


Not a digital sync issue.


After requesting the original ADATs and re-mixing one song here at home,
I think there may have been serious problems with the interfacing and likely
my operation of the gear. I'd appreciate any input from folks with
experience
in these matters, as could pertain to this frequency loss which was invisible
in the studio.

Please keep in mind that in the re-mix, I made no attempt to add clarity in
any shape, form or fashion. I tried to use the same cut-only EQ schemes
and cut considerably more high end than I did in the all digi studio.



Well, since the remix is considerably brighter than the first mix, and
if you cut MORE highs during the remix, than it seems while printing the
mixes you lost at least 8 or 9 dB of top end!

I've never myself used the "mastering" functions of the Masterlink, but
I'm pretty sure that they're all non-realtime processes. The Masterlink
needs to rewrite the audio to a new "rendered" playlist before it can
burn the CD, and as that will take a fair amount of time, I believe you
would be aware that something was amiss when time came to make your CDs.

So more than likely the Finalizer is the main (if not the only) culprit
here.

There are 5 "blocks" of processing in the Finalizers that I've used, and
if you're not looking at the main page (and know what the display is
actually trying to show!) you could have had any, all, or none of them
active.

Any of the degradation that others here mention the Finalizer having in
"bypass" would be pretty subtle, so something must surely have been
active, and in significant amount.

From your mp3s, it sounds as if the EQ block was on, with a fairly heavy
EQ curve dialed in.

Also, looking at the lissajous scope I can see artifacts of what appears
to be a moderate amount of limiting going on. It's not a hard limiter on
the overall program, but seems like perhaps the midband limiter was
getting hit, or the midband compressor (a different "block"!) was set to
a high ratio and getting hit.

I think, though, that a good mastering engineer will be able to do a lot
to help this out. It may not end up with as much openness and
transparency as you'd originally wanted, but should be quite acceptable,
and frankly most listeners will probably not even be aware of any
"issues" (unless there are more obnoxious passages than that which you
posted). Most pop music CDs have MUCH more egregious limiting and/or
clipping going on...though I can't speak for the current state of the
art in this genre (way outside my particular niche!).

I am puzzled though...if there was THAT much HF loss going on through
the Finalizer (or in the Masterlink), I can't imagine that you wouldn't
have been able to hear the difference on the 2-track playback, even
despite the 5 or 6 dB monitor level difference you mentioned in another
post!

And that 6 dB difference is itself quite suspicious, since a digital
output from the Masterlink should come back to the boards digital
returns at the same level that went in (once you allow for the voodoo
the Finalizer did). Somethings rotten in the state of Montana.... Or was
it coming back on an analog tape return?

Get thee to a mastering house and see where that it takes you!


Jeff C

--
Anti-Spam email address in effect.
My real email should be pretty obvious to an actual human being.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
The tools used were a Sony DMX-r100 (clock source), the HD-24
controlled
by an Alesis BRC, and an Alesis Masterlink. In the path before the
Masterlink
was a TC Finalizer. These were all digitally integrated.

Sounds like the Finalizer is the problem. They're cost effective boxes,
but
they mangle things pretty bad.

They don't _have_ to mangle things. But you really have to go out of your
way to keep them. Most people just leave it on one of the presets and let
it wreck everything, but it's actually possible to get control over them.

I used one everyday for years, they aren't too bad and they can sound good.
Have you ever looked at what it does to the audio in an editor? It's
terrible. I did lot's of records with with though. I use plugins now
instead.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
The tools used were a Sony DMX-r100 (clock source), the HD-24
controlled
by an Alesis BRC, and an Alesis Masterlink. In the path before the
Masterlink
was a TC Finalizer. These were all digitally integrated.

Sounds like the Finalizer is the problem. They're cost effective boxes,
but
they mangle things pretty bad.

They don't _have_ to mangle things. But you really have to go out of your
way to keep them. Most people just leave it on one of the presets and let
it wreck everything, but it's actually possible to get control over them.

I used one everyday for years, they aren't too bad and they can sound good.
Have you ever looked at what it does to the audio in an editor? It's
terrible. I did lot's of records with with though. I use plugins now
instead.

Thanks for the sample, Peter.

Thanks for the sample, Peter.

"Animix" wrote in message ...

Multiband did wonders on a 5 way split on my system when playing around with
the sample. I think that applying 8 to 10 splits with judicious finely
applied cuts and boosts would go a long way toward righting a lot of the
problems.


Doug Joyce
animix Productions
Durango, CO

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

Have you tried using multiband dynamics set to expand the afflicted range?

I've received a couple of contributions (Thanks Doug, Peter) with EQ applied.
These are quite tolerable. I think it's time for my mastering guy to have a try...

DM

"Animix" wrote in message ...

Multiband did wonders on a 5 way split on my system when playing around with
the sample. I think that applying 8 to 10 splits with judicious finely
applied cuts and boosts would go a long way toward righting a lot of the
problems.


Doug Joyce
animix Productions
Durango, CO

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

Have you tried using multiband dynamics set to expand the afflicted range?

I've received a couple of contributions (Thanks Doug, Peter) with EQ applied.
These are quite tolerable. I think it's time for my mastering guy to have a try...

DM

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...
Being able to 'pitch' the HD-24 down with the BRC, I'm not overly
concerned about what went on with the sample rate conversion.
Should I be? I see this as staying constant from the original ADAT
source tapes.

Probably not. Do you have the source files on ADAT? Why not just tranfer
them to a computer and mix it in the peecee?

I need a decent room to use. I'm not a 'plug-in' kind of guy, I think you know.

I made a big mistake here in taking these two pieces of gear and thier
owner's word for granted - - and of course for not already knowing more
about either of them (and the studio).

Sounds like a bad choice of rooms to me. I wouldn't beat myself up over it.
Just fix it and move on...


There wasn't exactly a lengthy list to chose from in the part of Montana
I was working in.

I guess I'll let George G. have a go at it in mastering. Never again will
I make this kind of mistake, and it will be some time before I bother to
consider the use of a Finalizer. (I know you used one for tracking kick
and snare for years and have more experience with it, and even though
this was *my* mistake, it's a very sour one that won't soon go away).

DM

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...
Being able to 'pitch' the HD-24 down with the BRC, I'm not overly
concerned about what went on with the sample rate conversion.
Should I be? I see this as staying constant from the original ADAT
source tapes.

Probably not. Do you have the source files on ADAT? Why not just tranfer
them to a computer and mix it in the peecee?

I need a decent room to use. I'm not a 'plug-in' kind of guy, I think you know.

I made a big mistake here in taking these two pieces of gear and thier
owner's word for granted - - and of course for not already knowing more
about either of them (and the studio).

Sounds like a bad choice of rooms to me. I wouldn't beat myself up over it.
Just fix it and move on...


There wasn't exactly a lengthy list to chose from in the part of Montana
I was working in.

I guess I'll let George G. have a go at it in mastering. Never again will
I make this kind of mistake, and it will be some time before I bother to
consider the use of a Finalizer. (I know you used one for tracking kick
and snare for years and have more experience with it, and even though
this was *my* mistake, it's a very sour one that won't soon go away).

DM

"Jeff Chestek" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" wrote:

Thanks for the input, Jeff.

Not a digital sync issue.

Without totally scouring the Finalizer paramaters (my not doing this created
the problem set that is now before me), it would seem that clock sources
*could* have been in conflict here.

Well, since the remix is considerably brighter than the first mix, and
if you cut MORE highs during the remix, than it seems while printing the
mixes you lost at least 8 or 9 dB of top end!

Couple that with the monitoring and there was indeed some loss. The
big issue that I'll never get a true answer to, is why I couldn't hear this
on site. Having to crank up the 2-track return for playback purposes
may have been compensating somewhat for the loss. If I crank the
playback of the mixes here, they aren't all that discernably bad. But
at average listening levels, the frequency loss is dramatic.

So more than likely the Finalizer is the main (if not the only) culprit
here.

Well.... the real culprit was my not diving into the Finalizer or simply
bypassing it. Simply put, pilot error... a bad one at that.

There are 5 "blocks" of processing in the Finalizers that I've used, and
if you're not looking at the main page (and know what the display is
actually trying to show!) you could have had any, all, or none of them
active.

I am fairly certain now, that whatever was going on in the Finalizer was
the direct result of a rock session that had taken place a couple of months
prior, and that the owner had continued to use the device as it was then
set-up, thinking it was merely simple, overall peak limiting that was taking
place. At least that's what he imparted to me when I suggested removing
the Finalizer from the path.

From your mp3s, it sounds as if the EQ block was on, with a fairly heavy
EQ curve dialed in.

Devastating device in the wrong hands (like mine were at the time). :-(

Also, looking at the lissajous scope I can see artifacts of what appears
to be a moderate amount of limiting going on. It's not a hard limiter on
the overall program, but seems like perhaps the midband limiter was
getting hit, or the midband compressor (a different "block"!) was set to
a high ratio and getting hit.

This jives with Mike River's reply and also with the minute 'pumping'
and shifting of the stereo field anomalies that have taken me weeks
to begin to discerne with any certainty. Recovery time is almost
instantaneous.

I think, though, that a good mastering engineer will be able to do a lot
to help this out. It may not end up with as much openness and
transparency as you'd originally wanted, but should be quite acceptable,
and frankly most listeners will probably not even be aware of any
"issues" (unless there are more obnoxious passages than that which you
posted).

There are worse pieces, I just grabbed a song that needed to be re-mixed
anyway to use for the comparison.

Most pop music CDs have MUCH more egregious limiting and/or
clipping going on...though I can't speak for the current state of the
art in this genre (way outside my particular niche!).

It's usually pretty open, with as much space and dynamics left in place
as is possible, given getting the product relatively close to a competetive
volume level.

I am puzzled though...if there was THAT much HF loss going on through
the Finalizer (or in the Masterlink), I can't imagine that you wouldn't
have been able to hear the difference on the 2-track playback, even
despite the 5 or 6 dB monitor level difference you mentioned in another
post!

Therein is the reason for my post to beging with. I am totally baffled by
my inability to hear the processing which was apparently taking place in
the Finalizer. This is an ass-kicker of a booboo.

And that 6 dB difference is itself quite suspicious, since a digital
output from the Masterlink should come back to the boards digital
returns at the same level that went in (once you allow for the voodoo
the Finalizer did). Somethings rotten in the state of Montana.... Or was
it coming back on an analog tape return?

Baffled again. I could never get behind the Argosy desk that housed
the Sony because of it's cramped positioning in the small control room.
I must assume, that even though the mix chain was definitely all digital,
that the monitoring through the 2-track return was wired analogue.

Get thee to a mastering house and see where that it takes you!

Indeed. Thanks again,

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

"Jeff Chestek" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" wrote:

Thanks for the input, Jeff.

Not a digital sync issue.

Without totally scouring the Finalizer paramaters (my not doing this created
the problem set that is now before me), it would seem that clock sources
*could* have been in conflict here.

Well, since the remix is considerably brighter than the first mix, and
if you cut MORE highs during the remix, than it seems while printing the
mixes you lost at least 8 or 9 dB of top end!

Couple that with the monitoring and there was indeed some loss. The
big issue that I'll never get a true answer to, is why I couldn't hear this
on site. Having to crank up the 2-track return for playback purposes
may have been compensating somewhat for the loss. If I crank the
playback of the mixes here, they aren't all that discernably bad. But
at average listening levels, the frequency loss is dramatic.

So more than likely the Finalizer is the main (if not the only) culprit
here.

Well.... the real culprit was my not diving into the Finalizer or simply
bypassing it. Simply put, pilot error... a bad one at that.

There are 5 "blocks" of processing in the Finalizers that I've used, and
if you're not looking at the main page (and know what the display is
actually trying to show!) you could have had any, all, or none of them
active.

I am fairly certain now, that whatever was going on in the Finalizer was
the direct result of a rock session that had taken place a couple of months
prior, and that the owner had continued to use the device as it was then
set-up, thinking it was merely simple, overall peak limiting that was taking
place. At least that's what he imparted to me when I suggested removing
the Finalizer from the path.

From your mp3s, it sounds as if the EQ block was on, with a fairly heavy
EQ curve dialed in.

Devastating device in the wrong hands (like mine were at the time). :-(

Also, looking at the lissajous scope I can see artifacts of what appears
to be a moderate amount of limiting going on. It's not a hard limiter on
the overall program, but seems like perhaps the midband limiter was
getting hit, or the midband compressor (a different "block"!) was set to
a high ratio and getting hit.

This jives with Mike River's reply and also with the minute 'pumping'
and shifting of the stereo field anomalies that have taken me weeks
to begin to discerne with any certainty. Recovery time is almost
instantaneous.

I think, though, that a good mastering engineer will be able to do a lot
to help this out. It may not end up with as much openness and
transparency as you'd originally wanted, but should be quite acceptable,
and frankly most listeners will probably not even be aware of any
"issues" (unless there are more obnoxious passages than that which you
posted).

There are worse pieces, I just grabbed a song that needed to be re-mixed
anyway to use for the comparison.

Most pop music CDs have MUCH more egregious limiting and/or
clipping going on...though I can't speak for the current state of the
art in this genre (way outside my particular niche!).

It's usually pretty open, with as much space and dynamics left in place
as is possible, given getting the product relatively close to a competetive
volume level.

I am puzzled though...if there was THAT much HF loss going on through
the Finalizer (or in the Masterlink), I can't imagine that you wouldn't
have been able to hear the difference on the 2-track playback, even
despite the 5 or 6 dB monitor level difference you mentioned in another
post!

Therein is the reason for my post to beging with. I am totally baffled by
my inability to hear the processing which was apparently taking place in
the Finalizer. This is an ass-kicker of a booboo.

And that 6 dB difference is itself quite suspicious, since a digital
output from the Masterlink should come back to the boards digital
returns at the same level that went in (once you allow for the voodoo
the Finalizer did). Somethings rotten in the state of Montana.... Or was
it coming back on an analog tape return?

Baffled again. I could never get behind the Argosy desk that housed
the Sony because of it's cramped positioning in the small control room.
I must assume, that even though the mix chain was definitely all digital,
that the monitoring through the 2-track return was wired analogue.

Get thee to a mastering house and see where that it takes you!

Indeed. Thanks again,

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

Thanks for the sample, Peter.

[bowing] It was a pleasure and a good learning experience, concocting
one of the possible remedies was almost integral in analysing the audio
anyway so you might as well benefit from it.

As for the Finalizer, exact model not specified and irrelevant in this
context ... it is no more to blame than the Porsche was.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

Thanks for the sample, Peter.

[bowing] It was a pleasure and a good learning experience, concocting
one of the possible remedies was almost integral in analysing the audio
anyway so you might as well benefit from it.

As for the Finalizer, exact model not specified and irrelevant in this
context ... it is no more to blame than the Porsche was.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

I guess I'll let George G. have a go at it in mastering. Never again
will
I make this kind of mistake, and it will be some time before I bother to
consider the use of a Finalizer. (I know you used one for tracking kick
and snare for years and have more experience with it, and even though
this was *my* mistake, it's a very sour one that won't soon go away).

I used it for kick and snare, primarily because of the artifacts that you
experienced. By altering the thresholds of the individual bands, I was able
to counteract the timbre change associated with heavy limiting during
tracking. Also, you have to turn the look-ahead down (it's default is 10ms)
to make it work. You know how I feel about it, if a piece of gear kicks my
ass, I get a hold of one to use and learn it inside and out so it never
happens again. Suck it up, borrow one and learn it. Don't be afraid of gear.
I always like to explore a piece of gear before I use it during a session,
this would not have happened if you had the luxury of using one. You're a
good engineer and have a great ear. Don't let it get you down...

I guess I'll let George G. have a go at it in mastering. Never again
will
I make this kind of mistake, and it will be some time before I bother to
consider the use of a Finalizer. (I know you used one for tracking kick
and snare for years and have more experience with it, and even though
this was *my* mistake, it's a very sour one that won't soon go away).

I used it for kick and snare, primarily because of the artifacts that you
experienced. By altering the thresholds of the individual bands, I was able
to counteract the timbre change associated with heavy limiting during
tracking. Also, you have to turn the look-ahead down (it's default is 10ms)
to make it work. You know how I feel about it, if a piece of gear kicks my
ass, I get a hold of one to use and learn it inside and out so it never
happens again. Suck it up, borrow one and learn it. Don't be afraid of gear.
I always like to explore a piece of gear before I use it during a session,
this would not have happened if you had the luxury of using one. You're a
good engineer and have a great ear. Don't let it get you down...