AndyKubicki Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 This brings to mind one more thing- the De-esser (a frequency dependent compressor used to filter excessive high frequencies), is this still used? If so, what frequencies does that affect? Or does it work in the same freq that are bumped up for presence? That would mean they are not in use anymore, at least not for the commercial stuff.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 It's true that a lot of less commercial CD's are not pushed to the limits. See the paper I linked to in the "Why DO CD's sound so harsh" thread for some of the finer details of why this is problematic. The presence thing nowadays is more restricted to country music where, in the explanation of one engineer, if the mix is too big (ie with a big bottom end) then the vocalist seems small. It's often times a deliberate mixing effort nowadays, not just a simple EQ in the finalization process. There are still mastering houses putting out boosted discs, but they're quickly becoming the fringe. I would also suggest that between bass management (taming the sub frequencies) and overcompression, a lot of pop tracks suffer from excessive brightness just by virtue of being smashed against a brick wall - our ears are most sensitive to those ranges, and if everything is coming out at the same constant volume, we are more apt to perceive the mid-highs as being louder than everything else - particularly since speakers can more easily drive highs than lows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 I'd love to walk through the process used on commercial CD's to see what happens twixt mic and jewel case. I'm pretty sure what Griff is saying plus more contributes to the lack of "real" feel to the majority of CD's. It's the fundamental, and still unanswered, question this thread is about. I produced a CD about this time last year I still consider my best. It was largely 20th century chamber music with 2 violins, cello, clarinet, and piano. The hall was a bit large, but, other than that, things went well. I recorded it direct to 16/44.1 and every disc is a master. Not even normalized. I've listened to it hundreds of times, and every time I hear it I am amazed at how good Redbook can sound even on the most acoustic of instruments. I guess it sounds like bragging, but perhaps not if I admit I've not the faintest idea why it sounds so good...unless it has to do with eschewing even accepted "non destructive" processes. One thing about Redbook: "Direct to disc" can be literal with it when a producer follows the above. Each "copy" is basically a file copy, that is, literally a perfect duplicate of the original. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Although you can always find exceptions, many labels also like songs and instrumentation that fill the entire frequency spectrum. By that, I mean there are always instruments playing that fit the bass, low mids, mids, and up. It creates a sort of busyness, that is suppsed to make people say "Wow! That sure sounds full and good. I'll buy that." More independent artists are mastering their own disks, and have never done vinyl, so they mix/master for it to sound the way they want it. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 "Not even normalized" Good. Don't ever start normalizing. This comes back to the white paper I posted about digital clipping. If you start applying comps and limiters in order to bring the volume up, it won't sound so full or good anymore - it'll start sounding brittle and harsh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 Thanks for the confirmation. The great majority of my experience is in the analog end of recording. As you've probably been able to tell, my digital understanding is still a work in progress. Right now, I operate under the "get it right on location" principle and "if you don't know what it does, don't touch it" in the post production part. Need to read that paper of yours. Where did you say it was? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 LOL! Not my paper - but it's linked in the thread titled "Why DO CDs sound so harsh?..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 It's true that a lot of less commercial CD's are not pushed to the limits. See the paper I linked to in the "Why DO CD's sound so harsh" thread for some of the finer details of why this is problematic. I understood the problem to be more money driven. The paper adds a technical reason. I don't know if it still happens, but if you are in a business and a prospective customer walks in and wants you to master his material as hot as it can go (and many other potential customers want same), if you want to keep that potential customer, you have to either convince him that it's not in his own best interest to do that and face loosing that potential customer if you're not convincing enough or if he doesn't care about quality as much as competing in the volume war, or you compress all breathing room out of the material and burn it as hot as she'll go. And who's money is backing the project to begin with? Maybe that's the source of the heat to burn hot. I actually think it's easier to overcome the technical side of this (someone will have a technical fix eventually) than the $$$ driving force. It's a bit enigmatic that we all need to make money, and that if bands (managers, backer and so on) see that louder music on the radio = getting higher on the charts = $$$, then that will be one of the requirements of the business. What's even more funny is that this is surely an unintended consequence on part of the consumer as this happens without (for the most part) the consumers' awareness. I'm glad that you say this problem has gone away to some extent. Maybe complaints from end users who actually bought CDs expected them to sound better when they played it at home or in the car and instead heard digital clipping counterbalanced the volume wars... Most, if not all, mastering engineers take pride in their work as it is an art. As such, they would much rather put out a product that would get the sonic approval of the end user...yet how many end users (especially beyond this forum) listen to a CD and say "Darn! That sounds great! I wonder who did the mastering!" But I'll bet that many a performer get the glory. It's like high end audio...transparency is the goal. I would really love to see some sort of meduim finally replace vinyl, not like it was going to in the 80s, but this time for good...errr...better. My ears do object to the noise level of vinyl, and though I do like the sound in general, it's mostly the louder material that I can listen to so as not to hear the noise. Not to mention ease of handling, storing and so on. Instead of spending my money on turntables and record cleaners and other associated materials, I would rather just buy a player that will give at least a good close performance without the associated drawbacks....IMHO. It sounds like we are getting closer and closer to that goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 Griff: I thought you were referring to another paper besides that one. My mistake. You should write one... Andy: Interesting that noise bothers you so much. Live concerts must drive you nuts! One of mine, and my wife's favorite recordings is a VERY old 78 of George Gershwin performing Rhapsody in Blue with the Paul Whiteman band. It is, without doubt, the most damaged disc I play. I suspect the noise often is louder than the music. OTOH, it is absolutely the most magical performance of this piece we've ever heard and we love it, noise and all. As to CD levels, I've only run into this once. As I've mentioned in other posts, I do not change anything, including leves, on my recordings. Every person gets a master. In most cases, the levels are lower than those of commercial CD's. One of my patrons came to me a while back with a problem. A boutique she wanted to sell one of our chamber music recordings through said she would do it, but the levels were too low to be heard over the noise in the shop. In this case, I compressed the dynamic range to around 12db max and normalized as well. It still sounded pretty good, and the boutique owner and producer were please. Of course, I marked it "Compressed-Demo Only" That's about the only application for such things I would agree to. Otherwise, if you want more volume turn your dial CW! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Andy: Interesting that noise bothers you so much. Live concerts must drive you nuts! Now that you mention it, yes...if the audience is whistling clapping, yelling DURING a piece. I do appreciate live concerts where the audience waits till the music is finished to show their enthusiasm. De Ja Vroom is a concert DVD of King Crimson recorded in Japan and the audience was very quiet untill the end of each piece. Jean Luc Ponte live in Germany is another one. OTOH, Yes at the House of Blues had people sceaming and yelling ESPECIALLY during some quieter acoustic guitar solos...what IDIOTS! One of mine, and my wife's favorite recordings is a VERY old 78 of George Gershwin performing Rhapsody in Blue with the Paul Whiteman band. It is, without doubt, the most damaged disc I play. I suspect the noise often is louder than the music. OTOH, it is absolutely the most magical performance of this piece we've ever heard and we love it, noise and all. I also love the Carnegie Hall version of Benny Goodman's Sing Sing Sing...the solos were unbelievably great. But it's a 1930's or 40s recording. If there is a recording of a magical moment, and it's a noisy or otherwise flawed recording, I have no problem with listening to it because there undoubtedly were magical many moments in music which were not recorded and forever lost save for the memories of those who witnessed them. But I sure am happy that the equipment was there to capture SSS. It's a different matter if I have a choice to play an LP with noise and a CD that's clean...now if the CD recording sucks, I'll take the vinyl. But once it's done justice on SACD (or DVDa or any other hi rez system) that will be my choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 Just picking at you... ;-) However, I really am not bothered by some degree of noise on LP's. For one thing, DBX almost eliminates groove noise, and I can eliminate 98% of ticks and pops if they are that bothersome by recording at 24/88.2 and SF NX pop and click removal. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Ha! well you did get me going...noise at a concert during a performance is just a pet peeve...er peave..peve...however you spell that! I'll have to check out some of those programs. The only worry I would have is if the processing would take you a step away from purity. Another thing I noticed was that a lower output cartridge I heard did not sound as noisy, so that's another was to minimize the problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 13, 2003 Author Share Posted August 13, 2003 Well, the DBX is debatable, I suppose. Whatever the extra circuit costs, IMHO it is well worth the result. For one thing, since you've extended the dynamic range by twice or so, that is so excellent it overcomes any slight degradation from the stage. Further, DBX really built great stuff. As to the digital processing, bear in mind it has absolutely no impact of any kind on the sound until it encouters tha 1/100 of a second or whatever spike pattern. I don't think there is a golden ear anywhere that could detect loss in that time. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Although we cannot distinguish the difference between the missing 1/100 of a second or not missing it, there is something we perceive if there are several missing pieces like this sequentially...this is where I believe the high rez vs 16/44.1 difference lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 ---------------- On 8/13/2003 12:47:25 AM AndyKubicki wrote: It's true that a lot of less commercial CD's are not pushed to the limits. See the paper I linked to in the "Why DO CD's sound so harsh" thread for some of the finer details of why this is problematic. I understood the problem to be more money driven. The paper adds a technical reason. I don't know if it still happens, but if you are in a business and a prospective customer walks in and wants you to master his material as hot as it can go (and many other potential customers want same), if you want to keep that potential customer, you have to either convince him that it's not in his own best interest to do that and face loosing that potential customer if you're not convincing enough or if he doesn't care about quality as much as competing in the volume war, or you compress all breathing room out of the material and burn it as hot as she'll go. And who's money is backing the project to begin with? Maybe that's the source of the heat to burn hot. I actually think it's easier to overcome the technical side of this (someone will have a technical fix eventually) than the $$$ driving force. It's a bit enigmatic that we all need to make money, and that if bands (managers, backer and so on) see that louder music on the radio = getting higher on the charts = $$$, then that will be one of the requirements of the business. What's even more funny is that this is surely an unintended consequence on part of the consumer as this happens without (for the most part) the consumers' awareness. I'm glad that you say this problem has gone away to some extent. Maybe complaints from end users who actually bought CDs expected them to sound better when they played it at home or in the car and instead heard digital clipping counterbalanced the volume wars... Most, if not all, mastering engineers take pride in their work as it is an art. As such, they would much rather put out a product that would get the sonic approval of the end user...yet how many end users (especially beyond this forum) listen to a CD and say "Darn! That sounds great! I wonder who did the mastering!" But I'll bet that many a performer get the glory. It's like high end audio...transparency is the goal. I would really love to see some sort of meduim finally replace vinyl, not like it was going to in the 80s, but this time for good...errr...better. My ears do object to the noise level of vinyl, and though I do like the sound in general, it's mostly the louder material that I can listen to so as not to hear the noise. Not to mention ease of handling, storing and so on. Instead of spending my money on turntables and record cleaners and other associated materials, I would rather just buy a player that will give at least a good close performance without the associated drawbacks....IMHO. It sounds like we are getting closer and closer to that goal. ---------------- Slow down there... I never said that the volume war thing was going away - the volume war is the single biggest problem we have in audio production today. Some of the other contributers to excessive "brightness" have gone away. This is one that has gotten worse with time. Listen to discs, even pop or rock discs, pressed in 1990-1993. Compare them directly to the latest pop/rock/country releases. If you don't immediately grab your volume knob, I'm impressed. The 2nd-saddest part about the loudness wars? Most discs, with a reasonable amount of limiting and multi-comping, will sit in exactly the same dynamic range on the radio as the ones that are pushed to the limits. Why? Because the radio station applies their own series of compressors to create as consistent a volume as possible throughout their broadcast. They don't want anybody calling the station complaining because one song blew 10,000 speakers out. But the absolute saddest part about the loudness wars? Most people still listen to the discs at the same volume level. If Joe Sixpack is grooving on an old Beatles CD, then his multi-changer switches over to the latest Grunge-du-jour band, he'll just shut the volume down on his system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 ---------------- On 8/13/2003 8:51:30 PM Mallett wrote: Well, the DBX is debatable, I suppose. Whatever the extra circuit costs, IMHO it is well worth the result. For one thing, since you've extended the dynamic range by twice or so, that is so excellent it overcomes any slight degradation from the stage. Further, DBX really built great stuff. As to the digital processing, bear in mind it has absolutely no impact of any kind on the sound until it encouters tha 1/100 of a second or whatever spike pattern. I don't think there is a golden ear anywhere that could detect loss in that time. Dave ---------------- Be very careful with that statement, Dave. I have already proven on this forum that there is a very audible change in a signal when one channel is merely time-shifted 5ms forward. That's 5 milliseconds. Half what you are stating is impossible to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I must have misunderstood when you said the 10-12 KHz bump thing went away (except for Country & Western)...guess money still rules! Glad I don't listen to Pop! What a hoot about the radio stations too! I forget they have to make sure they don't overmodulate and like you say, also end up limiting and compressing these works of artagain! LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 The 10-12Khz bump was very early in CD production - that's a lot different than the current trend of squeezing every available dB out of a track to make it as loud as possible. Sad. A format with 96dB total dynamic range, and most pop records use about 4dB of that range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I'll be doing some A/B testing with the material I have in both media to see what I can hear...I started tonight in the Listening Test thread. I'm sure some will have something where I will suspect the brightness bump since a lot of what I listen to is from the 70s and 80s, and some, like what I listened to tonight, will likely not have that bump. I don't think my collection will have anything from the compress/limit/make it hot catagory...we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted August 14, 2003 Author Share Posted August 14, 2003 I'm not sure which statement you were referring to, but if it was the click and pop removal process, the main point was that it does nothing until called upon. When call upon, it acts on both channels...even if there is nothing in the other channel. Obviously, one would not want to get channels out of sync, even by a very small amount, since this would be cumulative error that could become quite large in a noisy disc. Like most such processes, a good click and pop removal algo works best when it has to work least. Noise reduction on noisy, worn 78's and such is a very complex and time consuming process involving analyzing the noiseprint and carefully adjusting a number of interactive parameters. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.