| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Acadia
I am reluctant to do this, but the devil made me; I had no choice.
My wife is a composer. When her music is performed locally, I tag along and record the performances. She writes choral music that's usually performed first at the state university in town and writes chamber pieces that get performed by local musicians, mostly members of the Hudson Valley Philharmonic, who are friends and colleagues as part of a chamber concert series. For these recordings, two of the HVP players donated their time and chops. Shirley's on piano. Recordings were made in my living room with various Rode mics (I can afford them...) on a Tascam DR- 680. Laundered with Audition. Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I don't know. https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Le 16/01/2016 05:18, Jason a écrit :
I am reluctant to do this, but the devil made me; I had no choice. My wife is a composer. When her music is performed locally, I tag along and record the performances. She writes choral music that's usually performed first at the state university in town and writes chamber pieces that get performed by local musicians, mostly members of the Hudson Valley Philharmonic, who are friends and colleagues as part of a chamber concert series. For these recordings, two of the HVP players donated their time and chops. Shirley's on piano. Recordings were made in my living room with various Rode mics (I can afford them...) on a Tascam DR- 680. Laundered with Audition. Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I don't know. https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia ? Sorry, but to me it doesn't sound like live music, rather midi music. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:02:39 +0100 "Karamako"
wrote in article Cdymy.89815$a_7.51048 @fx43.am4 ? Sorry, but to me it doesn't sound like live music, rather midi music. Interesting! ..but definitely live. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Jason wrote:
"Karamako" ? Sorry, but to me it doesn't sound like live music, rather midi music. Interesting! ..but definitely live. ** I've been waiting for others to comment on this, but you only have one reply so far. I listened to the first sample track using headphones. All the instruments sound heavily compressed, there is no room ambience and it is almost mono. This has to be from a combination of factors like overly close miking, too much post processing and maybe the use of low bit rate MP3 encoding. Not nice to listen too. Maybe try gain with just a crossed pair of mics and very little or no processing. .... Phil |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared
inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s mp3's. Ugh - didn't know that. Perhaps if you pay for the snazzier service there's a way around that. Next time, if there is a next time, I'll upload the .wav files to DropBox instead. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Jason writes:
Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s mp3's. Ugh - didn't know that. Perhaps if you pay for the snazzier service there's a way around that. Next time, if there is a next time, I'll upload the .wav files to DropBox instead. It's possible then that this service "auto-mastered" for you. My comments would be much the same as Phil's, though the compression was rather odd sounding -- peculiar attack and release times, maybe even some sort of GR-dependent automatic ratio and/or auto release. As far as the near mono aspect -- you won't hurt anything, so try a few different mix versions with different pan settings. Try some different extremes to see what happens, then dial it back to something more natural -- or maybe you'll find some extreme pans useful at times. Experiment. And listen to other recordings across different genres in an environment where you have half-way decent imaging and can get a feel for what was done with pan. (Spoiler: some panning and spatial location is good and well thought out, some is bad, some is just plain stupid.) Most important of all -- get to live, unamplified events. Sit a little closer, toward the center. Close your eyes and listen (don't look) **listen** to how things are laid out spatially -- left to right and front to back. Then in your own post environment see what you can do with pan, reverb, and slight delays to really open up the space you're creating. For some reason, the spatial aspect of mixing is something that younger engineers can be really afraid of. You just need to dive in. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 1/18/2016 10:02 PM, Jason wrote:
Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s mp3's. Ugh 128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, but if you want a critique of your sonics, then the less done to change that, the better. I didn't give it a critical listen for space, dynamics, ambience and such, because I generally don't listen to those things. However, I thought that the playing sounded pretty stiff (which may have led to the comment about it sounding like MIDI sequencing) and that put me in the mood of "I don't care how great the tones are or how much ambient sound is missing." I just woudn't bother to listen to it a second time unless it was my job. However, on the surface, I don't think the recording itself deserves much criticism unless you ask for it, which you did. And asking for it makes people more fussy than they ordinarily would be, at least I hope so - in the sense that hearing what they perceive as imperfections in the recording spoils what would otherwise be an enjoyable listen. Personally, I don't have a problem with the mix being nearly mono, in fact I didn't really notice it. I can tell you that using a stereo mic on a grand piano doesn't give you very much stereo piano unless it's too close. If you record this ensemble again, you might try putting the cello and oboe in a good sounding space and record them (as well as the space) with your stereo mic, then use your other two mics on the piano so you can get some sense of width. And don't make avoiding leakage a high priority. Think about how you want the ensemble to "look" audibly. I figure the piano to one side of center, and the oboe and cello to the other side of center. Your choice of who goes where, but arrange them in the relative positions where they'll be in the mix. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Thank you, Frank and Mike. This was an experiment "close-mic'ing" the
instruments. Most recordings I make of small ensembles have been done with a single stereo mic--the NT4 or SP LSD2--placed at a distance of around 12-15 feet in front of the ensemble at a height of 10' or so. They are usually recorded in auditoriums or churches which present some rumbly noise problems but also provide some natural room ambience that my sample totally lacks. Point taken. I had a chat with a musician friend who regularly uses SoundCloud and he tells that you really need to pay $'s for the upgraded service level because they do NOT muck around with the files. There's no automatic mp3 conversion. I always learn here. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..."
What year is it? 128 barely tolerable for spoken word. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 16-01-2016 05:18, Jason wrote:
I am reluctant to do this, but the devil made me; I had no choice. My wife is a composer. When her music is performed locally, I tag along and record the performances. She writes choral music that's usually performed first at the state university in town and writes chamber pieces that get performed by local musicians, mostly members of the Hudson Valley Philharmonic, who are friends and colleagues as part of a chamber concert series. For these recordings, two of the HVP players donated their time and chops. Shirley's on piano. Recordings were made in my living room with various Rode mics (I can afford them...) on a Tascam DR- 680. Laundered with Audition. Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I don't know. https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia "This playlist has no tracks" ... ??? Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
|
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 20/01/2016 06:53, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 16-01-2016 05:18, Jason wrote: Here are some samples of her music and my recordings. I present them (the recordings, anyway) with considerable trepidation because I've been following this newsgroup for years and am forever reminded of how much I don't know. https://soundcloud.com/jwnp/sets/acadia "This playlist has no tracks" ... ??? Maybe it's not available in Europe? It says the same here. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 10:10:47 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/18/2016 10:02 PM, Jason wrote: Some coincidence! A minute after I responded to Phil, an email appeared inviting me to watch a video about mastering for SoundCloud. Indeed, if the video is telling the truth, SC turns uncompressed files into 128 kb/s mp3's. Ugh 128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, but if you want a critique of your sonics, then the less done to change that, the better. During the Napster file sharing days, most 128k's sounded foul, I'd always hunted for 160k files at a minimum. But, then along comes one song, at 96k, and it sounded NICE (Spiral Staircase - Broken Hearted Man)! So, that's when I thought, the better the "mastering", the better a song will sound even at a low bit-rate! Jack I didn't give it a critical listen for space, dynamics, ambience and such, because I generally don't listen to those things. However, I thought that the playing sounded pretty stiff (which may have led to the comment about it sounding like MIDI sequencing) and that put me in the mood of "I don't care how great the tones are or how much ambient sound is missing." I just woudn't bother to listen to it a second time unless it was my job. However, on the surface, I don't think the recording itself deserves much criticism unless you ask for it, which you did. And asking for it makes people more fussy than they ordinarily would be, at least I hope so - in the sense that hearing what they perceive as imperfections in the recording spoils what would otherwise be an enjoyable listen. Personally, I don't have a problem with the mix being nearly mono, in fact I didn't really notice it. I can tell you that using a stereo mic on a grand piano doesn't give you very much stereo piano unless it's too close. If you record this ensemble again, you might try putting the cello and oboe in a good sounding space and record them (as well as the space) with your stereo mic, then use your other two mics on the piano so you can get some sense of width. And don't make avoiding leakage a high priority. Think about how you want the ensemble to "look" audibly. I figure the piano to one side of center, and the oboe and cello to the other side of center. Your choice of who goes where, but arrange them in the relative positions where they'll be in the mix. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
JackA wrote: "During the Napster file sharing days, most 128k's sounded foul, I'd always hunted for 160k files at a minimum. But, then along comes one song, at 96k, and it sounded NICE (Spiral Staircase - Broken Hearted Man)! So, that's when I thought, the better the "mastering", the better a song will sound even at a low bit-rate!
Jack - show quoted text -" Very good, JackA, regarding the difference mastering makes vs difference in formats. But, while Peter Larsen's suggestion regarding 128 for spoken word is open to debate, he IS right in the second half of his reply: Send Sound Cloud the highest quality file you possibly can(subject to upload rates, etc), preferably lossless. Whatever they do to it during publication will be less noticed than with a lossy upload. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Jason wrote:
Thank you, Frank and Mike. This was an experiment "close-mic'ing" the instruments. Most recordings I make of small ensembles have been done with a single stereo mic--the NT4 or SP LSD2--placed at a distance of around 12-15 feet in front of the ensemble at a height of 10' or so. They are usually recorded in auditoriums or churches which present some rumbly noise problems but also provide some natural room ambience that my sample totally lacks. Point taken. Do not be afraid of using fake room ambience! A little bit of reverb can go a long way, and slightly different reverb patterns on different instruments can give an impression of them being in slightly different spaces. It's very easy to overdo that, but done subtly it can open things up a lot. Also, of course, it's possible to have distant mikes and add in spots to bring instruments closer and control the ambience of different instruments individually. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 1/19/2016 10:00 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 20-01-2016 04:15, wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..." What year is it? 128 barely tolerable for spoken word. It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Kind regards Peter Larsen Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate during DAW mixdown because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud uses, convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit wordlength to Soundcloud? Tim Sprout |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:47:07 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "During the Napster file sharing days, most 128k's sounded foul, I'd always hunted for 160k files at a minimum. But, then along comes one song, at 96k, and it sounded NICE (Spiral Staircase - Broken Hearted Man)! So, that's when I thought, the better the "mastering", the better a song will sound even at a low bit-rate! Jack - show quoted text -" Very good, JackA, regarding the difference mastering makes vs difference in formats. -- It's tough to say 100%. Maybe encoding issues along with slower computers caused problems (too). I remember with Win95 and a DOS based encoder, took FOREVER to encode a single song!! But, while Peter Larsen's suggestion regarding 128 for spoken word is open to debate, he IS right in the second half of his reply: Send Sound Cloud the highest quality file you possibly can(subject to upload rates, etc), preferably lossless. -- I'm not sure his (Peter's) point. Higher Q means better vocal clarity [I know that, because I can NOW understand lyrics!]. Noisy transmission, narrow bandwidth for just voice, then I agree. Whatever they do to it during publication will be less noticed than with a lossy upload. -- I don't like this Sound Cloud, why I have my own website. No need to install nasty software to transfer files! Jack |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 20 Jan 2016, Peter Larsen wrote in
rec.audio.pro: It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Why 32 kHz? |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 20 Jan 2016 11:28:08 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article Also, of course, it's possible to have distant mikes and add in spots to bring instruments closer and control the ambience of different instruments individually. --scott That's what I have done in auditoriums and it's worked. There is sometimes one instrument in the ensemble that is featured in a piece and I put a mic on it and can make it a little more prominent after the fact. Recently I've tried M-S recording and like how I can control room ambience after the fact. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:46:32 +0000 "John Williamson"
wrote in article dg8vrbFg9c9U1 @mid.individual.net Maybe it's not available in Europe? It says the same here. Dunno - I'm a neophyte SC user. I may give up on SC and park recordings on DropBox. At least DB won't "re-master" them! |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
I had been reluctant to experiment with different mic approaches because
I usually record a one-time, live performance. If the experiment fails, I got nothin'... In a SMH moment a while ago I realized that for few $'s I could buy a bar allowing me to mount two mics on the stand. The DR-680 can record a pair of stereo tracks, so I can try XY -and- M-S simultaneously. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 12:48:17 PM UTC-5, Tim Sprout wrote:
On 1/19/2016 10:00 PM, Peter Larsen wrote: On 20-01-2016 04:15, wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: "128 kpbs MP3 is quite tolerable for listening to most music, ..." What year is it? 128 barely tolerable for spoken word. It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Kind regards Peter Larsen Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate during DAW mixdown because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud uses, convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit wordlength to Soundcloud? Tim Sprout Dither has NOTHING to do with audible masking. Dither works even for pure math applications that have nothing to do with hearing. M |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Nil wrote:
On 20 Jan 2016, Peter Larsen wrote in rec.audio.pro: It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Why 32 kHz? I am assuming that the lower sample rate means effectively less compression needed in order to get the file to a given size, and the high frequencies above 16 Khz are not very critical anyway. I believe this is a matter of trading something that makes a small difference for something that makes a larger one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
Jason wrote:
On 20 Jan 2016 11:28:08 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in article Also, of course, it's possible to have distant mikes and add in spots to bring instruments closer and control the ambience of different instruments individually. That's what I have done in auditoriums and it's worked. There is sometimes one instrument in the ensemble that is featured in a piece and I put a mic on it and can make it a little more prominent after the fact. In the digital era this is much easier since you can easily time-delay them to line up properly, which makes the spots stick out much less. Recently I've tried M-S recording and like how I can control room ambience after the fact. But you can't control room ambience that way, you can only control stereo width. Of course, you can add a pair of omni outriggers and use that to control room ambience after the fact... the combination of M-S with outriggers is very popular and one of the NPR stations in the area uses it extensively. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 21 Jan 2016 10:12:10 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article I put a mic on it and can make it a little more prominent after the fact. In the digital era this is much easier since you can easily time-delay them to line up properly, which makes the spots stick out much less. If I can, usually I can, I put myself in the player's position before the recording and clap my hands a couple of times. That makes aligning them pretty easy. Recently I've tried M-S recording and like how I can control room ambience after the fact. But you can't control room ambience that way, you can only control stereo width. Of course, you can add a pair of omni outriggers and use that to control room ambience after the fact... the combination of M-S with outriggers is very popular and one of the NPR stations in the area uses it extensively. --scott Thanks, Scott, I'll try that next time. :-) Jason |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 20-01-2016 18:48, Tim Sprout wrote:
128 barely tolerable for spoken word. It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Peter Larsen Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate during DAW mixdown No! - stay at whatever your house sample rate is. What you upload to Soundcloud should be mastered for Soundcloud. because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud uses, Those are incommensurable concepts. No. You downsample AFTER mastering to get rid of the treble that perceptual coding is likely to replace with white noise anyway. By doing that you avoid wasting wordlength on it and get a cleaner sound with less splatty treble. convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit wordlength to Soundcloud? Unless you master for dvd audio a mastered file should in my comprehension be 48 or 44 kHz 16 bits. Some may know this better than I do, corrections will be appreciated if I am wrong. Tim Sprout Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 21-01-2016 00:22, Nil wrote:
On 20 Jan 2016, Peter Larsen wrote in rec.audio.pro: It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Why 32 kHz? To ensure that the perceptual encoder, whichever it is, doesn't even try to encode high treble. This because real treble tends to be replaced with bursts of white noise - make som fft's of mp3s if in doubt - and to save wordlength that is of better use in the midrange. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Acadia
On 1/22/2016 7:13 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 20-01-2016 18:48, Tim Sprout wrote: 128 barely tolerable for spoken word. It is actually less tolerable for spoken word than for music. The trick to use with soundcloud and similar services is to convert to 32 kHz sample rate 16 bit properly dithered before upload and upload in full wordlength and leave bit-reduction to them. Peter Larsen Thanks for this. To clarify my understanding, use 32 kHz sample rate during DAW mixdown No! - stay at whatever your house sample rate is. What you upload to Soundcloud should be mastered for Soundcloud. because it is a multiple of 128 kpbs which Soundcloud uses, Those are incommensurable concepts. No. You downsample AFTER mastering to get rid of the treble that perceptual coding is likely to replace with white noise anyway. By doing that you avoid wasting wordlength on it and get a cleaner sound with less splatty treble. convert from the higher internal DAW 24 or 32 bit resolution to the lower 16 bit resolution Soundcloud uses using dither to add desirable noise to mask less desirable noise, and upload the full 16 bit wordlength to Soundcloud? Unless you master for dvd audio a mastered file should in my comprehension be 48 or 44 kHz 16 bits. Some may know this better than I do, corrections will be appreciated if I am wrong. Tim Sprout Kind regards Peter Larsen Thank you, Peter. Helpful clarification. Tim Sprout |
Linear Mode
