[[email protected]]

Is there any software that would help me to normalise by music
collection by loudness *AND* bass/treble? It all varies so much, I'd
like to get some consistency while I'm going through all my CDs and
making MP3s. I'd like a way to help me judge how the relative amounts
of 'thump' and 'sparkle' vary from one disc to another (and they
really do with my collection of pop/rock/dance, and I'm fussy!) so
that I can tweak the WAV files before converting. I don't want
compression, so a multi-band limiter isn't the answer - I just want to
be able to A/B compare with a good clear reference track (Tears for
Fears : Seeds of Love may be old now but it's about as good as it gets
for quality) and get them sounding reasonably similar, tonally. If
not, I shall be forever twiddling with tone controls!

Is there anything that would help me see at a glance how bass-heavy
(or light) a track is, and how dull it is (needing a treble boost) to
help me as I tweak the levels? Obviously the best way to do this is by
ear (seeing as that's how I'm judging it in the end) but I'm wary that
my headphones/speakers/ears may have dips or peaks in their response
which could confuse things. Years of experience have proved that often
these things are best left alone because you end up with changes that
sound OK in one set of 'cans' but then it sounds horrible in others,
or on speakers. What I'm after is a more general, broadband way of
analysing how much audio energy there is in fairly wide frequency
ranges, so that I can tweak things in a less destructive way (without
boosting narrow ranges and not realising).

It's a tricky task, which probably explains why I've never heard of
such a thing. All opinions welcome, but I don't want to hear that tone
controls are evil! I enjoy my music more when it sounds 'right',
despite any introduced extra distortion, noise, phase effects etc. I
have been a graphic equaliser fan in my time and pround of it, LOL.
I have found over the years that room quality and speaker placement
can usually make them pointless - when it's set up correctly a good
system makes almost any track sound bearably right in isolation (the
ears adjust, and there's a few dB of leeway of what will be
acceptable), but I still notice a difference switching between tracks.
I want to enjoy my MP3s in random shuffle rather than adjust to the
sound of whole albums.

Software that provides a graphic trace of how bass / mid / treble
ranges vary in dB levels over the course of a WAV file, that would
excellent! Something that would help me by showing me a glance that
I'll probably have to tame this track by 4dB down in the bass, and
lift the treble up too.. etc...
I could seperately isolate the bass / mid range / treble in various
passes though a WAV editor and look at the levels I'm left with, but
that's a lot of hard work! Surely someone else must have faced this
before and coded some handy free/shareware..? )

Any ideas? thanks

[rakmanenuff]

Any ideas? thanks

sorry. i can't give you a good answer at all. the free software that
makes all your mp3s the same perceived level (Mp3Gain) tries to do
something like that, but clips the signal and changes the tonal
character, making the songs sound noticably worse. sounds like really
bad digital limiting.

in logic audio there's a "MATCH EQ" and there's one in cubase too i
think.
in those you get presets for typical mixdowns from various types of
music, or you can simply run your fave cd through it and save the
setting.

then you can sit there, analyze and match the others to that, track by
track.
and it gives you the option of using a percentage match from -100 to
+200, with 100 being a complete match. that's cool because tracks are
never the same, so a 50% match sounds more subtle than a 100% one.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
Is there any software that would help me to normalise by music
collection by loudness *AND* bass/treble? It all varies so much, I'd
like to get some consistency while I'm going through all my CDs and
making MP3s. I'd like a way to help me judge how the relative amounts
of 'thump' and 'sparkle' vary from one disc to another (and they
really do with my collection of pop/rock/dance, and I'm fussy!) so
that I can tweak the WAV files before converting. I don't want
compression, so a multi-band limiter isn't the answer - I just want to
be able to A/B compare with a good clear reference track (Tears for
Fears : Seeds of Love may be old now but it's about as good as it gets
for quality) and get them sounding reasonably similar, tonally. If
not, I shall be forever twiddling with tone controls!

Is there anything that would help me see at a glance how bass-heavy
(or light) a track is, and how dull it is (needing a treble boost) to
help me as I tweak the levels? Obviously the best way to do this is by
ear (seeing as that's how I'm judging it in the end) but I'm wary that
my headphones/speakers/ears may have dips or peaks in their response
which could confuse things. Years of experience have proved that often
these things are best left alone because you end up with changes that
sound OK in one set of 'cans' but then it sounds horrible in others,
or on speakers. What I'm after is a more general, broadband way of
analysing how much audio energy there is in fairly wide frequency
ranges, so that I can tweak things in a less destructive way (without
boosting narrow ranges and not realising).

It's a tricky task, which probably explains why I've never heard of
such a thing. All opinions welcome, but I don't want to hear that tone
controls are evil! I enjoy my music more when it sounds 'right',
despite any introduced extra distortion, noise, phase effects etc. I
have been a graphic equaliser fan in my time and pround of it, LOL.
I have found over the years that room quality and speaker placement
can usually make them pointless - when it's set up correctly a good
system makes almost any track sound bearably right in isolation (the
ears adjust, and there's a few dB of leeway of what will be
acceptable), but I still notice a difference switching between tracks.
I want to enjoy my MP3s in random shuffle rather than adjust to the
sound of whole albums.

Software that provides a graphic trace of how bass / mid / treble
ranges vary in dB levels over the course of a WAV file, that would
excellent! Something that would help me by showing me a glance that
I'll probably have to tame this track by 4dB down in the bass, and
lift the treble up too.. etc...
I could seperately isolate the bass / mid range / treble in various
passes though a WAV editor and look at the levels I'm left with, but
that's a lot of hard work! Surely someone else must have faced this
before and coded some handy free/shareware..? )

Any ideas? thanks

A quick & dirty way (which I realise you've said you don't really want)
to do it would be to run all the files through a multi band compressor
plugin set to give the sound you want, which is how a lot of radio
stations got/ get their distinctive sound. Some sound editors will let
you do this as a batch program overnight. I admit it can do 'orrible
things to the sound quality, though.

The EQ match functions mentioned in another reply will also do the job,
but need each track dealing with separately. To quickly & roughly check
on the spectral content of a sound file, I use the spectrum view that
you find in most audio editors handy. Audacity is free & multi platform
with this facility. The more red in any position on a time slice in the
track view, the more energy in that band. Even with the graphic view of
sound energy at various frequencies, though, it'll still be a matter of
listening to each track & adjusting by hand if you want it to sound even
fairly close to your target sound.

If you want more detail of sound energy by frequency, there are FFT
spectrum analyser plugins for most audio editors which will give the
graph you want either for a particular moment or averaged over the file.
Most will even show it in real time as the track plays.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Geoff]

wrote:
Is there any software that would help me to normalise by music
collection by loudness *AND* bass/treble? It all varies so much, I'd
like to get some consistency while I'm going through all my CDs and
making MP3s.

Why stop there ? As your music will have the same dynamics, loudness, and
tone, there remains one item not addressed - the notes. You should
normalise all the notes and words ( I guess that's two items) to be the same
as your 'reference' . Then your mind will not be stressed by the
differences.

In fact you could save time and effort, and just repeat the one track ad
infinitum !

geoff

[DC]

Geoff wrote:

Why stop there ? As your music will have the same dynamics, loudness, and
tone, there remains one item not addressed - the notes. You should
normalise all the notes and words ( I guess that's two items) to be the same
as your 'reference' . Then your mind will not be stressed by the
differences.

In fact you could save time and effort, and just repeat the one track ad
infinitum !

The verse and the chorus of that one song are probably different, too.
One of them has to go.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 5, 3:04 am, DC wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Why stop there ? As your music will have the same dynamics, loudness, and
tone, there remains one item not addressed - the notes. You should
normalise all the notes and words ( I guess that's two items) to be the same
as your 'reference' . Then your mind will not be stressed by the
differences.

In fact you could save time and effort, and just repeat the one track ad
infinitum !

The verse and the chorus of that one song are probably different, too.
One of them has to go.

That's what I like about newsgroups, it always descends into Take The
P

Thanks for the sensible replies, although I'm still a little lost to
be honest. I haven't much experience of many audio editors, but the
ones I have seen so far haven't been much use for what I want.
Can anyone recommend any web forums where there may be another bunch
of people likely to help?
Thanks.

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_9_]]

wrote in message
Thanks for the sensible replies, although I'm still a little
lost to
be honest. I haven't much experience of many audio editors,
but the
ones I have seen so far haven't been much use for what I
want.
Can anyone recommend any web forums where there may be
another bunch
of people likely to help?
Thanks.

I think you are lost because you came to a bunch of people who
pride ourselves in audio quality that translates accross the
spectrum of playback devices and asked us the best way to
smear **** all over your recording collection. Best to find a
group of psudeo/audio people who know nothing about the right
way to do audio for advice on how to ruin your recording
collection.Think about this. Some of us may literaly have
dedicated months to make YOUR recording collection sound the
way it sounds.

Try the i-Tunes people or the MP3 downloading crowd, they seem
to have a handel on ruining the sound we strive to craft. Even
the people who make your mp3 media server, may have a program
that can find any uncompressed WAV files on your system and
turn them into strained **** automatically. Think of all the
time that you will save not having to ever get off of your ass
and touch that volume control again.

peace
dawg

[[email protected]]

On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote:

I think you are lost because you came to a bunch of people who
pride ourselves in audio quality
If these bunch of people had made the music roughly similar in the
first place then I wouldn't have this request to start with! I'm not
blaming anyone though, not all studio monitors are equal, not all ears
are equal, not all ears hear the same after hours of work at the
console than when they started, etc. It's very subjective unless you A/
B compare with a reference piece.

asked us the best way to
smear **** all over your recording collection.
Not at all, just a few minor adjustments to even things out a little.

If you don't believe me, try doing a radio show from a bunch of rock/
pop CDs and cue each next track while the current one is playing,
switching back and forth a few times while twiddling the bass/mid/
treble. If you're anywhere near as fussy as me (or as "golden ears" as
you think you are) you'll notice just how much variation there is. The
bass control will end up back and forwards several dB over the course
of the show and the treble too.

Some of us may literaly have
dedicated months to make YOUR recording collection sound the
way it sounds.
I appreciate the efforts, things are generally good enough for most
people but in some ways you've collectively failed. Especially those
who push things to clipping these days!

I wasn't looking for an argument. I've long had a lot of respect for
this group, and I'm not going to lose it over this, that's for sure.
This was my first port of call, FWIW.

Cheers

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote in message
Thanks for the sensible replies, although I'm still a little
lost to
be honest. I haven't much experience of many audio editors,
but the
ones I have seen so far haven't been much use for what I
want.

What you need is first of all to compress and limit the crap out of
everything so that all the music turns into a nice square wave. This
eliminates any level differences between tracks. Then you can employ a
tool like Har-Bal which will equalize everything to follow the exact same
curve.

If you do this properly, you get absolutely uniform garbage, like music
that has been extruded from a tube. Every track will sound the same,
so you won't be able to tell the difference between Metallica and
Cavallera Rusticana. It will all sound the same.

But, why even bother listening to music if you're going to do that?
Just listen to pink noise tracks! That way, you won't be bothered by
any track-to-track variations.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

I think you miss Dawg's point. The reason the balances in your songs vary a
lot is that the producers and musicians *wanted* them that way. It's called
"artistic judgement". What you're basically asking for is a way to negate
their artistic judgement to make everything sound alike. Most of us don't
think everything *should* sound alike.

Maybe if one is programming a dance club where one song fades into the next
and relatively seamless transitions are needed, there'd be some point to
what you're looking for. But in the rest of the world, no.

Another way of looking at it, more metaphorical: If you get a hamburger at
any McDonald's in the world, it will be the same as any other hamburger at
any other McDonald's. They've achieved complete uniformity. Is that a good
thing? I'd say, in the big picture, no.

Peace,
Paul

[Geoff]

wrote:

That's what I like about newsgroups, it always descends into Take The
P

Thanks for the sensible replies, although I'm still a little lost to
be honest. I haven't much experience of many audio editors, but the
ones I have seen so far haven't been much use for what I want.
Can anyone recommend any web forums where there may be another bunch
of people likely to help?
Thanks.

Any web forum with anybody with one jot of sense in it will tell you the
same thing - it is the difference between items of music that prevent them
all sound samey and bland.

geoff

[Geoff]

wrote:


If you don't believe me, try doing a radio show from a bunch of rock/
pop CDs and cue each next track while the current one is playing,
switching back and forth a few times while twiddling the bass/mid/
treble. If you're anywhere near as fussy as me (or as "golden ears" as
you think you are) you'll notice just how much variation there is.

Yes. That variation is a Good Thing.

The
bass control will end up back and forwards several dB over the course
of the show and the treble too.

I don't have treble or bass controls.

geoff

[John Williamson]

Geoff wrote:

Any web forum with anybody with one jot of sense in it will tell you the
same thing - it is the difference between items of music that prevent them
all sound samey and bland.

This is what he says he wants:-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On 6 Sep, 08:49, John Williamson
wrote:

For cryin' out loud, I hardly think a few dB of bass/treble boost/cut
is going to seriously destroy the music, considering the wide
variations of quality of domestic speaker and headphones, and the
similar variations amongt monitoring in studios. It's never going to
be an exact science, is it? Does absolutely everyone have totally flat
response gear?

I'm not trying to trash the dynamics or overall balance of the music,
if you bother to read what I've been saying. I'm sure that in each
case if I had been present at the mixing desk as each song was
finished and polished (let alone what horrors the mastering guys had
got up to) it would have sounded great to my ears too. That's what I'm
aiming for at the end of the day, a sound quality as close as possible
to what they heard in the studio. I do know what goes on in studios!

Anyone with any real knowledge of how many ways sound quality can vary
would understand that there will inevitably be differences amongst
different recordings made independently from one another. We're
talking multitrack efforts with - gasp - EQ used on most channels -
gosh - even different mics have different sounds - who'd have
thought?!

If you can't accept that the most carefully made CDs will vary
somewhat (and I could quite happily prove it) in ways that I strongly
believe were NOT INTENTIONAL, but just a result of equipment and
hearing differences, then please don't waste your time showing
yourselves up!

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

wrote in message...

If you can't accept that the most carefully made CDs will vary
somewhat (and I could quite happily prove it)


Then make them sound the way you want them to, one song at a time,
by using your ears.... there is no other way. Maybe when you're 60,
you'll be finished.



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

[[email protected]]

On Sep 6, 11:06 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
wrote in message...
If you can't accept that the most carefully made CDs will vary
somewhat (and I could quite happily prove it)

Then make them sound the way you want them to, one song at a time,
by using your ears.... there is no other way. Maybe when you're 60,
you'll be finished.


I suspect that's probably the answer, yes )

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_9_]]

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 6, 11:06 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm
wrote:
wrote in message...
If you can't accept that the most carefully made CDs will
vary
somewhat (and I could quite happily prove it)

Then make them sound the way you want them to, one song at
a time,
by using your ears.... there is no other way. Maybe when
you're 60,
you'll be finished.


I suspect that's probably the answer, yes )

If you want to hear the recordings as they were heard in the
mastering suite or control room you should be asking about how
to get your room/system to sound like a professional control
room or mastering room. Once you have an accurate room and
transparent full range equipment then maybe you will hear what
the recordings sounded like when they were created by the
artists and tech people. Then maybe you will get it.

Trying to EQ and compress each recording to satisfy your
liking on an unknown system and room response is self
indulgence and not something most other people will appreciate
like you want to. I feel you are fixin to make more problems
for yourself and others down the line, especially if one of
your processed songs is played on another system different
from the unknown one you were listening to while making your
processing choices.

Finished when you are 60 is assuming you are now 18.


peace
dawg

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 7:44 am, wrote:
Is there any software that would help me to normalise by music
collection by loudness *AND* bass/treble?


Short answer: No.

Part of the reason is I'm guessing you represent the entire market
within our galaxy, possibly the universe for such a thing.

What are you going to do with certain recordings such as those made to
sound like a telephone connection, where the sound simply isn't there
by design?

Further, I'll bet a zillion dollars you wouldn't be able to discern
when the goal had been reached.

And if you were to hear a rock track and then a symphonic track that
were tweaked in exactly the way you specify, no doubt the mere
presence of different instuments recorded would give you cause to
fidget. Oooh...I can't abide those tympanies....and those french
horns...can't we do something about that? Egads, it just
sounds...."different" than that Elvis track....

Even if it were possible to do, I'm curious how many decades of your
life you're willing to devote to indulging this particlar fetishistic
pursuit?

I'd suggest the time would be more wisely spent on therapy.

[Spob]

On Sep 4, 7:44 am, wrote:


Any ideas?


Yes, you should kill yourself immediately.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 6, 4:14 pm, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote:
If you want to hear the recordings as they were heard in the
mastering suite or control room you should be asking about how
to get your room/system to sound like a professional control
room or mastering room. Once you have an accurate room and
transparent full range equipment then maybe you will hear what
the recordings sounded like when they were created by the
artists and tech people. Then maybe you will get it.
Obviously different control rooms sound different then, otherwise
recordings wouldn't vary so much!


Trying to EQ and compress each recording to satisfy your
If you'd read my question and follow-up comments you'd have noticed
I don't want compression. I'm only talking about tweaks that make it
more seamless to blend one track into another so that if someone
likeminded was listening they wouldn't be itching to tickle the tone
controls. I'm sure you would hear an immediate difference in clarity
between some dull early CDs from the mid 80s and later remasters, and
then something as smooth as Depeche Mode's Enjoy the Silence and then
as harsh as a U2 track I can't remember the name of, then some
pounding R&B tracks, etc etc etc.
Each one doesn't sound too bad in isolation, when the ear has had time
to relax in between, but leap from one to another and it's
immediately apparent if you're anywhere near as good at hearing as you
think you are.

Compare the bass-light and somewhat harsh Eurythmics with a booming
bit of dub reggae. Then, what if I'm transfering from a load of old
vinyl and my cartridge isn't particularly stellar (but good enough
with a tweak?), and a box full of old tapes that not only varied in
quality to start with but now also vary by tape quality/alignment/
biasing errors, and another box of minidiscs that I'd like to get
sorted out while I've still got something that plays them....? Heck, I
could even go through a load of FM or satellite radio stations that
all sound different... obviously these radio folk are as convinced as
you are that they know what they're doing and yet one station sounds
fine, another too bright, another as dull as dishwater!

Get a grip - sound quality varies from these so-called professionals.

liking on an unknown system and room response is self
indulgence and not something most other people will appreciate
like you want to. I feel you are fixin to make more problems
for yourself and others down the line, especially if one of
your processed songs is played on another system different
from the unknown one you were listening to while making your
processing choices.
That's exactly what I said I was wary of. I only want an easier, more
scientific way to make the small changes at home instead of later at
the radio studio.

Finished when you are 60 is assuming you are now 18.
If only - that was a long time ago! I can still hear 19kHz though )

You guys really aren't getting it, are you?

peace
I believe you.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 6, 4:37 pm, wrote:

Part of the reason is I'm guessing you represent the entire market
within our galaxy, possibly the universe for such a thing.
What, and Orban don't make a living out of it with their Optimods?

What are you going to do with certain recordings such as those made to
sound like a telephone connection, where the sound simply isn't there
by design?
I don't listen to music that old.

Further, I'll bet a zillion dollars you wouldn't be able to discern
when the goal had been reached.
You got a zillion then?

And if you were to hear a rock track and then a symphonic track that
were tweaked in exactly the way you specify, no doubt the mere
presence of different instuments recorded would give you cause to
fidget. Oooh...I can't abide those tympanies....and those french
horns...can't we do something about that? Egads, it just
sounds...."different" than that Elvis track....
It's not get difficult to get a sense of how dull/bright/heavy/light
a track is within seconds of playing a suitable section. And I'm not
proposing to vary the settings along the track, just one tweak per
recording.

Even if it were possible to do, I'm curious how many decades of your
life you're willing to devote to indulging this particlar fetishistic
pursuit?
I could easily manage an album each evening. It soon mounts up.

I'd suggest the time would be more wisely spent on therapy.
I never said I absolutely must achieve this. I'm only looking for
advice to see if there's anything helpful out there.

Thanks, I'd forgotten how lovely it was to engage with the hostility
of the newsgroups.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:14 pm, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote:
If you'd read my question and follow-up comments you'd have noticed
I don't want compression. I'm only talking about tweaks that make it
more seamless to blend one track into another so that if someone
likeminded was listening they wouldn't be itching to tickle the tone
controls.

Compression is the primary tool for doing this. Overall compression to
equalize levels, and multiband compression for rough equalization of
tone.

I'm sure you would hear an immediate difference in clarity
between some dull early CDs from the mid 80s and later remasters, and
then something as smooth as Depeche Mode's Enjoy the Silence and then
as harsh as a U2 track I can't remember the name of, then some
pounding R&B tracks, etc etc etc.

Yes, it's supposed to be that way. They are intended to be different tonally
for a reason.

Each one doesn't sound too bad in isolation, when the ear has had time
to relax in between, but leap from one to another and it's
immediately apparent if you're anywhere near as good at hearing as you
think you are.

Yes, this is true. This is why you can't just mix tracks randomly and
expect them to sound good. It doesn't work that way.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:21:31 -0700, wrote:

If you'd read my question and follow-up comments you'd have noticed
I don't want compression. I'm only talking about tweaks that make it
more seamless to blend one track into another so that if someone
likeminded was listening they wouldn't be itching to tickle the tone
controls. I'm sure you would hear an immediate difference in clarity
between some dull early CDs from the mid 80s and later remasters, and
then something as smooth as Depeche Mode's Enjoy the Silence and then
as harsh as a U2 track I can't remember the name of, then some
pounding R&B tracks, etc etc etc.
Each one doesn't sound too bad in isolation, when the ear has had time
to relax in between, but leap from one to another and it's
immediately apparent if you're anywhere near as good at hearing as you
think you are.


Your question wasn't ridiculous. But you rattled the monkey-cage and
you won't stop them jumping up and down now :-)

Leave it a bit, and come back with a question about e.g. a box of tape
copies (they'll LIKE it being about tape :-) all dubbed by different
people on different equipment, and how best to renovate them. Then
you'll maybe get some useful answers.

Actually, better not make it tape. They'll only start telling you to
buy 20 different playback machines and have orgasms over Nak Dragons
:-)

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_9_]]

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 6, 4:14 pm, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
wrote:
If you want to hear the recordings as they were heard in
the
mastering suite or control room you should be asking about
how
to get your room/system to sound like a professional
control
room or mastering room. Once you have an accurate room and
transparent full range equipment then maybe you will hear
what
the recordings sounded like when they were created by the
artists and tech people. Then maybe you will get it.
Obviously different control rooms sound different then,
otherwise
recordings wouldn't vary so much!

Perhaps the music, musicians, engineers and mixers and
mastering engineers have something to do with it too.


peace
dawg

[[email protected]]

On Sep 6, 12:30 pm, wrote:

What are you going to do with certain recordings such as those made to
sound like a telephone connection, where the sound simply isn't there
by design?

I don't listen to music that old.


Effects like that are commonly used in modern recordings. And you
think you'll recognize when all your recordings have the exact same EQ
profile?


Further, I'll bet a zillion dollars you wouldn't be able to discern
when the goal had been reached.

You got a zillion then?


Um...sure. Just like you're proposing a perfectly plausible, logical,
worthwhile goal.


And if you were to hear a rock track and then a symphonic track that
were tweaked in exactly the way you specify, no doubt the mere
presence of different instuments recorded would give you cause to
fidget. Oooh...I can't abide those tympanies....and those french
horns...can't we do something about that? Egads, it just
sounds...."different" than that Elvis track....

It's not get difficult to get a sense of how dull/bright/heavy/light
a track is within seconds of playing a suitable section.


Of course. And exactly what kind of gear will you be listening through
and what's your listening environment going to be? Are you going to be
strapped in to a special seat custom-molded to your body to make sure
you're situated in exactly the same place every time so you get the
exact same frequency emphasis? Are you going to have your hearing
checked to make sure you compensate for whatever frequency
deficiencies you suffer from?

And be sure you're running the extra super-duper shiny Monster Cables,
you know, 'cuz only the best will do.

And don't forget to check the humidity levels, barometric pressure,
sunspot activity level and feng shui of the room to make sure
everything is *just* so.

In fact, just to be thorough, have a witch doctor give the place a
once-over to check 'fo 'dem eebul spiritz.


And I'm not
proposing to vary the settings along the track, just one tweak per
recording.


Oh that's right, you not only want something that nobody else wants,
though you feel you know a way to do it, you've stated it's too much
work and want someone else to do the work and give it to you for free,
with one click simplicity.



Thanks, I'd forgotten how lovely it was to engage with the hostility
of the newsgroups.


Hmm, might there be a reason you keep getting a similar response from
various folks... Gee, I wonder if it could have anything to do with
the ludicrous and troll-like nature of your post.

[Allen Corneau]

On 9/6/07 2:43 PM, in article , "Deputy
Dumbya Dawg" wrote:


Perhaps the music, musicians, engineers and mixers and
mastering engineers have something to do with it too.


No, it's all about the gear, at least that's what the salesman down at
Guitar Center told me!

:-P


Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
www.esmastering.com

[Geoff]

wrote:

I'm not trying to trash the dynamics or overall balance of the music,
if you bother to read what I've been saying. I'm sure that in each
case if I had been present at the mixing desk as each song was
finished and polished (let alone what horrors the mastering guys had
got up to) it would have sounded great to my ears too. That's what I'm
aiming for at the end of the day, a sound quality as close as possible
to what they heard in the studio. I do know what goes on in studios!

What say two songs sound really different in a studio ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

On 6 Sep, 23:09, "Geoff" wrote:

What say two songs sound really different in a studio ?

Why would anyone deliberately make a song sound flat, dull and
lifeless?
Why does a classic album rereleased and remastered sound better than
the first release from the mid 80s?
Why did Q magazine, the last time I looked, give albums ratings for
sound quality?
Do you seriously expect the whole world to believe that absolutely
everyone working in the business knows exactly what they're doing,
that all studios sound totally perfect, it's a totally level playing
field, that every album released in the last 40 years sounds great,
especially despite huge technical advances in that time?

And you think *I* am trolling?!! I don't think so.

The last time I saw an article on tips for newbie/amateur music
producers it contained sensible advice about how the ears adjust to
poor tonal balance and get fatigued, how things will sound different
when you return the next day refreshed. It is my belief that different
studios do have subtle differences (how can it not be the case?) and
are not perfect, people all hear differently, especially after a long
session trying to perfect a mix. It strikes me that when polishing
their works for release that they do not actually compare it that well
to other previous works. It is inevitable, and I'm not complaining
about that.

I suppose I could let a multiband compressor do it's stuff on each
track and look at how much it's doing to each band. That could be
helpful.

That's it, so long, this one's over as far as I'm concerned. Arguing
on newsgroups can be fun, but it's not productive is it?

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_9_]]

wrote in message
oups.com...

I suppose I could let a multiband compressor do it's stuff
on each
track and look at how much it's doing to each band. That
could be
helpful.

That's it, so long, this one's over as far as I'm concerned.
Arguing
on newsgroups can be fun, but it's not productive is it?


I presume you have not heard what a multiband compressor does
to mastered music and you have not spent much time with
something like Waves L3 mastering your own mixes? There are
four bands with many parameters per band. What it does
completely depends on the settings AND the dynamic character
of the music. Many mastering operations are brutalized with
this type of tool and you want to slap one on all your music?
Please. And by the way a few posts back you were stating you
did not want to compress even denying having expressed a
desire to compress and now you are talking multiband
compression. So you are learning something from all us mean
people after all. Wrong thing though.

Now LOOKING at a display perhaps you can learn something. I
have an old compressor hooked across one of the parallel bus's
of my monitor drive. I have been LOOKING at the peak levels of
whatever it is that is playing on my studio monitors for
years. It is interesting what you can and can not tell from a
meter.

And how is that thread on alt.masterpiece.pro you started on
how to get all those museum paintings to look the same
regardless of lighting and artistic difference.


peace
dawg

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On 6 Sep, 23:09, "Geoff" wrote:

What say two songs sound really different in a studio ?

Why would anyone deliberately make a song sound flat, dull and
lifeless?

To make it match with the rest of the album, or because it has to be
in the inner groove of an LP.

Why does a classic album rereleased and remastered sound better than
the first release from the mid 80s?

Usually they don't. Most of the remastering jobs I have heard are
butchering the original recordings and compressing the crap out of them.

Why did Q magazine, the last time I looked, give albums ratings for
sound quality?

Because albums vary in sound quality as well as style.

Do you seriously expect the whole world to believe that absolutely
everyone working in the business knows exactly what they're doing,
that all studios sound totally perfect, it's a totally level playing
field, that every album released in the last 40 years sounds great,
especially despite huge technical advances in that time?

No, but there is an enormously wide range of "good" and what is "good"
for one style or piece is totally inappropriate for another.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 7 Sep, 13:36, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote:

alright I'll bite, it's quiet here, you made me come back one more
time...

I suppose I could let a multiband compressor do it's stuff
on each
track and ***LOOK*** at how much it's doing to each band. That
could be
helpful.

- as in let a multiband compressor do it's stuff
and **LOOK** at how busy it is with each band, and use that to help
guide me.


And how is that thread on alt.masterpiece.pro you started on
how to get all those museum paintings to look the same
regardless of lighting and artistic difference.

err, poor analogy - there's a fixed range of paint brightnesses from
black to white. You don't get a painting that's too light or too dark
(unless it's faded over the years) when it's quite obviously trying to
portray a realistic bit of scenery (rather than something abstract).
TV and film though, that's a different story - more of you
professionals who think they know it all end up making programmes too
over-colourful, or unsaturated, lacking contrast etc. - even when it's
supposed to look a bit more natural.

And WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE is the key thing here. I know what live
music sounds like, and bands that play live do, on the whole I hope,
try to put out CDs that sound like a real performance - albeit within
the limitations of recording and replaying over domestic gear of any
quality. When I find a recording dull it's because I think "if I was
hearing this live it would be far clearer than this, that percussion
would be a lot louder in the top range than that" and I'd only hear it
live as bad as the record if I was standing in the crowd with hands
over my ears. Surely the goal is to give a good rendition of the music
as it's meant to be heard?! Like I said : as it was originally heard
at the desk in the studios.
But comparitively of course, compared to other recordings )

etc.

Seeya.

[Geoff]

wrote:
On 6 Sep, 23:09, "Geoff" wrote:

What say two songs sound really different in a studio ?

Why would anyone deliberately make a song sound flat, dull and
lifeless?

One man's flat dull and lifeless may be another's 'natural'. Especially if
you are accustomed to all music sounding the same as what your opinion of
'normal' should be. This situation will get worse if you remove this
diversity.

Why does a classic album rereleased and remastered sound better than
the first release from the mid 80s?

Because tecjhnology has moved on and cleaner clearer mastering may be
possible. Still bnot the same as a preset tonal balance. And many
remasters are hidious, pandering to the brighter-is-better brigade.

Why did Q magazine, the last time I looked, give albums ratings for
sound quality?

Um, to rate sound quality. If aound quality was so easy as a preset EQ
repsonse, then they could all be fanatstic with next to no effort.

Do you seriously expect the whole world to believe that absolutely
everyone working in the business knows exactly what they're doing,
that all studios sound totally perfect, it's a totally level playing
field, that every album released in the last 40 years sounds great,
especially despite huge technical advances in that time?

No, but my guess is that many or most have a deeper understanding of musical
production values than those you have displayed.

I suppose I could let a multiband compressor do it's stuff on each
track and look at how much it's doing to each band. That could be
helpful.

If you know better than the original mixer or masterer, or just want to have
fun, then go for it. But don't tell us everything that doesn't comply with
your preconception of perfection is flawed.

That's it, so long, this one's over as far as I'm concerned. Arguing
on newsgroups can be fun, but it's not productive is it?

Evidently not.


geoff

[rakmanenuff]

it's theoretically possible to design such a software, but it would
probably get it "wrong" on maybe... 1 out of 10 tracks.

if EQ was the only problem it'd be easy, but there is the whole thing
of how "loud" a track sounds to the person listening, and that can be
totally different from what the meters are showing. there are so many
possible variations, imo the software just wouldn't be able to
anticipate it all. but maybe that could be corrected over a longer
time period of trial and error.

if you're dj'ing i guess you just have to know your record collection
and use the EQ. or you could use AUDACITY to do your own masters of
the most problematic tracks beforehand.