Jump to content
Chris A

The Missing Octave(s) - Audacity Remastering to Restore Tracks

Recommended Posts

"There's an old adage in the prosound world where if you're applying the same EQ to every channel (on a mixer), then your system isn't calibrated properly. "

 

As Chris has pointed out (in different words), this is basically what a mastering engineer does when he messes with the two track mix. Perhaps the mixer and masterer should work more in concert (no pun intended), but then the one who has been doing mastering only will end up out of his high paying job.

 

Chris, I had been thinking you were getting too far out there with your demastering, but the more I have read through your concepts and WHY you do this, it makes more and more sense. Kudos!

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce, your comment is precisely why I've been demastering in the recordings that I've mentioned here.  When you take the downmixed stereo tracks and put them through heavy global EQ and limiting/compression during mastering, and then say that you've "improved the sound", then something is either wrong with the mastering engineer's setup (specifically the loudspeakers they're using and/or room acoustics)...or they just don't care about what the finished product sounds like on a good system.  They want only the perceived maximal monetary returns...nevermind the hit on product quality.  Pushing around EQ in large doses to unbalance the tracks literally changes the timbre of all the instruments and voices.  Compression does the same thing, although the listening effect is somewhat different.

 

I believe that if you're going to do creative EQ, its better to do it before the mixer, and then "mastering" only consists of extremely small tweaks (i.e., less than 3 dB anywhere in the audible spectrum) and perhaps some extremely light limiting/compression (i.e., less than a dozen clipped waveforms per track), then leveling the tracks for the album, then ship off the tracks to the pressing plant...or simply release online. 

 

I believe in leaving the creativity to the musicians playing on the tracks themselves.

 

Chris

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up. 

 

I don't know if you've seen this related presentation by Sean Olive, et al., but the three reference songs listed in it were three I found that didn't require any real demastering at all (extremely minor tweaks):

 

Jennifer Warnes, “Bird on a Wire”
Tracy Chapman, “Fast Car”
James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here"

 

My guess is that Olive or his colleagues have been using the same techniques as above to either screen reference tracks, or have actually been editing some tracks themselves. 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the 2 1/4 years of demastering stereo music tracks, I recently ran across the first instance where it is clear that a popular or jazz music track with relatively full instrumentation was mixed so that the 1/f curve was not the best sounding. 

 

The CD where I found this track is Stacey Kent's The Boy Next Door CD.

The_Boy_Next_Door_(album).jpg

 

In this case, it was clear that her voice was mixed at a significantly higher level than the background instrumentation (double bass, hi-hat, ride cymbal), so that there was a "double hump" in the 1/f curve: one peak at ~100 Hz and another higher peak at 250 Hz.    The point of this is that once the mixed levels are locked into a recording, any effort to establish a 1/f cumulative curve profile will actually drive the result to sound worse than the original.  Of the 10,000 tracks that I've demastered to date, only a handful of tracks are clearly in this category for an entire music track/song.  The original CD track sounds better due to the balance of harmonics of each instrument in the mix, even though the 1/f cumulative spectrum is not present.

 

However, in this case, there was also a boosting of the highs above 2-3 kHz that maximized at ~10 kHz that overemphasized the consonants and sibilances of the singer, and the ride cymbal.  After a 3-6 dB de-emphasis of those frequencies to approximate a 1/f curve at higher frequencies, the naturalness of the recording environment emerged.

 

All other tracks that have distorted cumulative loudness curves (the "purple mountain" curve within Audacity from the "Plot Spectrum" command) clearly have EQ applied after the mixdown tracks are created, thus unbalancing not only the overall levels of loudness in each spectral band, but more importantly the relative harmonics of each voice. 

 

This isn't the case in tracks mixed such that the voices are combined but no EQ is used after mixdown to stereo. 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting 1996 JAES article by Peter John Chapman (B&O) that compiled music track spectra and did some music track spectrum statistics by genre of music.  The averaged spectrum plots by genre are found at the end of article:

 

http://www.mountain-environment.com/AES_paper_1996_4277.pdf

 

This paper really describes the degree of mastering EQ used on the stereo production tracks, averaged by music genre type, and also shows the 1996 after-mastering averages for Dynamic Range Database values (i.e., crest factor or peak-to-average values) on page 7. 

 

The purpose of posting a link to this article is so that those here that, for one reason or another, have not yet demastered their tracks, instead using amplifiers, modified crossover networks and drivers, and upstream EQ in their preamps or source disc players/phonograph preamps to approximate a (single) correcting curve.  Those individuals can use whatever EQ capabilities they have by music genre to approximate a demastered music track spectrum using correcting EQ to approximate a 1/f curve with -16 dB/decade (-5.5 dB/octave) slope.  Some music genres, as you will see, require a fair amount of correcting EQ (on average) to move back to a recorded 1/f curve (before mastering EQ was applied). 

 

Chris

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A plot of the average crest factors (i.e., dynamic range) by genre found in the 1996 Chapman JAES article above:

5a259bc21eaa0_AveDynamicRangebyGenre.PNG.02f4840f4f8aee35044c98bfa9530bad.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that the Chapman paper linked above describes almost exactly the type of mastering EQ used by genre that I've seen on average.  This will give you a clue on what EQ to try when you play a stereo recording (such as a phonograph record or CD) without actually looking at the tracks themselves using an audio editor like Audacity. 

 

Below you will see one spectrum plot for the "heavy" group that is most applicable to rock and its derivatives, overlaid with a IEC 268-1 simulated signal (solid black) and a notional 1/f (-5.5 dB/octave) target demastering curve in red.  From this one chart, you can see what frequencies and attenuation/boost required to achieve a demastered spectrum based on the average "heavy" mastering EQ profile.

 

5a2818c695b50_HeavySpectrumvsEC268-1fromChapman.thumb.PNG.e8151351d85f4ba697f4d60632400c91.PNG

 

While that doesn't mean that pre-EQing your loudspeakers, either through upstream EQ, high output impedance amplifiers, or use of non-flat passive crossover networks after the amplifier, will work for each disc or even each track on a disc, it will give you a much better success rate on listening to your music with much more neutral EQ--much more like the stereo mixdown tracks before mastering EQ was applied.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris A said:

...pre-EQing your loudspeakers...

 

1 hour ago, Chris A said:

...will give you a much better success rate on listening to your music with much more neutral EQ...

You noted the Cello Palette EQ curve in the past when asked about dealing with internet source streaming music. Is that what you are recommending again, or are there other similar options to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're using a Cello palette, then you can read the difference between the "Heavy" curve (in the example above) and the 1/f demastering curve at the various frequencies corresponding to the Cello palette center frequencies, and set the Cello palette filters accordingly. 

 

If your source music has a mastering EQ curve that's similar to the averaged curve shown in the example, you will hear your music much closer to as-recorded conditions.  If it doesn't sound much better, then you can experiment with the Cello palette settings until it does.  At that point, I'd recommend writing down the settings on something that you can keep associated with the disc or the ripped music tracks so that you can simply set the filters there again. 

 

Then again, if you use Audacity to correct the tracks locally, you can see what each track needs (in terms of correcting EQ), then save it.  Then you don't have to set the Cello palette filters again...:wink:

 

You can also save the Cello palette filter settings as canned "demastering" configurations, then you can recall them for the streaming music titles that you choose to use them on.  Then everything stays legit and above board.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DizRotus This is from the "Right this Minute" thread...

 

2 hours ago, DizRotus said:

I suspect Chesky’s recordings are not casualties of the loudness wars.  What say you Chris A?

 

I've found that the dozen or so Chesky albums that I own are interesting...from a demastering point of view.  If you believe that these albums are "reference" and that they are your "go to" discs for evaluating , you may want to stop reading here.

 

What I've found is that, while the Chesky albums are not really mastered for loudness--just a reasonable amount of compression/limiting is used to control the average levels to something like -14 dBFS to perhaps -19 dBFS, they were mastered for a particular "sound" that clearly differs from that which was recorded in the recording studio.  What was done in mastering was that significant levels of mastering EQ was used to change the overall timbre of the music.  In the particular case of the Rebecca Pidgeon discs (particularly The Raven) the mastering EQ seems to have been used to make her voice sound "younger" or higher pitched.  [This is not unprecedented: I have found the same techniques used on Frank Sinatra albums from the 1940s-1960s.]

 

In general, the EQ mastering made to Chesky discs changed the timbre or overall sound of the recordings in pleasing ways.  When you hear the demastered Rebecca Pidgeon albums, you will be likely be torn between the two versions, mastered and demastered, and might want to retain both versions for comparison purposes.  Personally, I feel that the original sound (i.e., before creative mastering EQ was applied) is my preferred target sound.  Others might like the mastered versions. 

 

Chris

 

MI0000649855.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@boxerjake from the LaScala bass? thread:

 

1 hour ago, boxerjake said:

...The principle of operation is an assumption that very low frequencies in the original music have been lost or removed during recording and CD production. The PCA3 generates subharmonics at half the input frequency, with a sampling range from 50 - 100 Hz in the "Digital Restoration" mode...this eliminates boominess that would occur if subharmonics were added from original frequencies at 100 - 500 Hz, and eliminates adding subharmonics to voices that are sent monophonically...any signal that is monophonic will not have subharmonics added to it. The separate crossover can be used to send <90 Hz frequencies (line level inputs and outputs) to a pair of powered subwoofers (one each for left and right channels), and >90 Hz (line level) to the main front left/right amplifiers (pre-outs and main-ins on a receiver can be used).

 

I've found that it's much more effective to demaster the music itself to restore the bass below 100 Hz since the original bass frequencies that have been attenuated are still there and at high signal/noise levels.  When an inverse mastering EQ curve is employed to restore a1/f cumulative spectrum curve (-16 dB/decade) to the tracks, the bass is restored, i.e., no sub-harmonic "synthesis" is required, and the resulting sound is much more realistic than using bass synthesis.

 

I've also found that many tracks possess bass noise that exists at specular frequencies corresponding to droning line noise (50/60 Hz) and HVAC noise (typically found at 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 32, 37, and 41 Hz).  Additionally, there are certain recordings where the second harmonic of the line noise (100/120 Hz) and sometime third harmonic (150/180 Hz) is present and visible in the spectrograms.  Performing notch filtering at these specular frequencies on a case-by-case basis significantly cleans up the recording and results in much more transparent and clear midrange (via significant reduction in higher frequency modulation distortion with these problem bass noise frequencies). 

 

Note that this demastering for bass restoration requires the use of spectrograms and cumulative SPL density spectra plots to visually identify the incoming issues with the tracks, and confirm the effect of the iterated demastering inverse filters--along with careful listening using a calibrated stereo setup in-room to verify the resulting demastered tracks.  The results speak for themselves.  Also note: once the track is demastered, no further editing or work on the resulting tracks are required...you're done having to deal with the issues--unlike the use of plugins at playback time.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 2:07 PM, Chris A said:

 

 

 

Note that this demastering for bass restoration requires the use of spectrograms and cumulative SPL density spectra plots to visually identify the incoming issues with the tracks, and confirm the effect of the iterated demastering inverse filters--along with careful listening using a calibrated stereo setup in-room to verify the resulting demastered tracks.  The results speak for themselves.  Also note: once the track is demastered, no further editing or work on the resulting tracks are required...you're done having to deal with the issues--unlike the use of plugins at playback time.

 

Chris

 

 

LOL... Ya , that sounds like something any forum member can just whip up in their spare time !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, boxerjake said:

LOL... Ya , that sounds like something any forum member can just whip up in their spare time !

 

Yes, they can...:D

 

The application software is free.  So are the tutorials...:emotion-21:  The results speak for themselves. 

 

If you would like to hear demastered tracks, you need only mention your desire to hear a few tracks. 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×