What's interesting to me is that the Harman Intl. guys put together a comprehensive self learning computer-based application free of charge for participants to accomplish ear training specific to loudspeaker evaluation, and that someone would take the effort to denigrate that effort as "commercialization" or "marketing".
I really thank Sean Olive for making that application public: he didn't have to do that and I'm sure that he had to fight internally in his organization to make that happen. He helps not only Harman, but also folks like us reading here--including potential competitors. However, the end result are potentially much better informed customers and perhaps much better products overall.
Chris
I really thank Sean Olive for making that application public: he didn't have to do that and I'm sure that he had to fight internally in his organization to make that happen. He helps not only Harman, but also folks like us reading here--including potential competitors. However, the end result are potentially much better informed customers and perhaps much better products overall.
Chris
I have a stream of consciousness thread (...meaning that I was learning as I was going along, making all my mistakes public along the way). Caveat Emptor applies: https://community.klipsch.com/index...taves-audacity-remastering-to-restore-tracks/
I plan to do a series of YouTube videos on "how to" that augment what you can already find on YouTube on the subject (some of which aren't very good, I've found). But my current "round tuit" box is a little low right now. The problem has been getting set up with a quiet environment and the wherewithal to grind through all the learning and mistakes to get those videos completed, edited, and posted there.
Chris
I actually wanted to talk to you about corner loading but I got distracted. I might put some thoughts together and start another thread.
That's a subject that's not discussed often. Many have avoided using it due to their lack of knowledge of how to simultaneously handle early midrange reflections--in order to also have outstanding stereo imaging with corner loudspeaker locations. However it works spectacularly once those few acoustic measures are taken...I dare say better than any other loudspeaker location I've found in terms of deepest bass coverage/response and stereo imaging.
Chris
Chris
It's too bad we'd have to re-master our favourite music ourselves, but I would certainly consider it on some material. Though there is music that i.m.h.o. is beyond repair.
While it was a deliberate choice of the mixing engineer (to make it sound like an old jazz track or something to that extend):
I'd call it a failure... view of an Amy Winehouse track, I believe it was from "Rehab".
Could be viewed as proof that our speakers really should be capable of playing square waves (lol)
While it was a deliberate choice of the mixing engineer (to make it sound like an old jazz track or something to that extend):
I'd call it a failure... view of an Amy Winehouse track, I believe it was from "Rehab".
Could be viewed as proof that our speakers really should be capable of playing square waves (lol)
Last edited:
Can I just point out that the string (on a string instrument or a piano) makes very little sound. It is the sound board on a piano, or the body of a string instrument, excited by the string that produces the sound.
That's not a very good source to start with: Album details - Dynamic Range Database
Albums that are that compressed and otherwise processed to that level have terminal diseases. The worst of all is the intentional injection of noise and use of multi-band compressors, which in my experience isn't reversible. Limiting (i.e., clipping) largely is reversible.
See the video starting at minute 8:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Fb3rWNWDA
The soundboard makes the lion's share of the sound.
If you've ever played a Fender Rhodes piano without it being turned on, you'd know how much sound that the soundboard in an acoustic piano is responsible for producing.
Chris
Definitely not news to me. Many more do agree, but it's strange why this all went downhill somewhere in the 90's.
What Happened To Dynamic Range?
Just wanted to present some of the horrors you can encounter in more modern recordings. This track stood out as a very bad example. And it was a deliberate choice. One I certainly don't understand.
Yet the mixer feels proud about his work and claims to care about sound quality:
Secrets Of The Mix Engineers: Tom Elmhirst
Luckily some do care, like Bob Katz...
Find it hard to smile with such facts when revealed, flaws are invisible at first look for the customer same as with bad written software but just as wrong as if the turning wheels on the new car was placed up on the roof, or sewer pipe at the new house turned up the chimney.
Ah, thanks. I was about to ask that very question, because I have found no good way to undo that. So much recent stuff has it, that it seems hopeless.
More than one forum member--otherwise very knowledgeable on audio matters--has verbally assaulted me in defense of those mastering practices, ad hominem style. I've been called crazy for talking about how to at least partially correct the damage for better hi-fi reproduction...to undo as much of it as possible.
You might understand my astonishment for encountering folks here that have been indoctrinated so deeply and successfully by the recording industry's memeplexes that defend their undefendable industry-wide practices.
So I'm a bit confused as to whether or not to continue to speak about the problems and what to do about it. The first step of any 12 step program is to admit that there's a problem. Those people can't get past step one.
I've also seen a lot of people that are used to blaming their loudspeakers for not "making the music sound right"...automagically that is...simply by designing loudspeakers or gear "better".
At some threshold of higher fidelity, it seems to me that the source of each problem must be acknowledged and techniques applied to correct those problems at their source.
Chris
well I can see why it's so emotive. I remember when Cello released the audio pallette. Every review I saw said it was the most amazing preamp, but they (reviewer) wouldn't want one in their system. I think that cuts to the core of the 'high fidelity' view that you should accurately reproduce what was laid down. QUAD pre-amp owners have of course known since the early 80s how useful the odd tweak here and there is.
But we should not be afraid of defeatable tone controls here.
But we should not be afraid of defeatable tone controls here.
Beside the thread link that I posted earlier, here are some other observations:
a) I actually refer to the process as "unmastering" because that's the goal--to undo the mastering EQ and limiting, as well as cleaning up the LF line noise that emerges from restoring the "missing octaves"
b) I no longer listen to stereo music tracks that haven't been unmastered. I only listen to the incoming (mastered) tracks occasionally before saving the newly unmastered tracks in order to hear the magnitude of the changes, and how the original mastered tracks sound (usually they sound like a table radio in relative terms). There is a reason why this is: the difference between mastered and unmastered tracks is quite large as a rule. Unmastered tracks can typically be played back at both louder and softer volumes than their mastered versions and still sound much better than their mastered versions. This is one of the most distinguishing features of unmastered tracks.
c) There are very few stereo albums that don't significantly benefit. This is one of the biggest surprises I've found. (It shouldn't be that way.)
d) Orchestral, solo acoustic instrument, and other sparse acoustic instrument tracks require special EQ methods compared to the 1/f (-5.5 dB/octave) curves used for most popular music, such as rock, R&B, funk, larger ensemble jazz, pop, etc. and all their derivatives.
e) Classical albums tend to reuse their EQ curve from track to track with minimal tweaks. Popular music tracks typically do not reuse prior EQ tracks: new correction curves have to be developed for each track--as a rule. Classical music tracks typically require the greatest magnitude EQ correction curves and LF noise removal, while popular music requires the lion's share of de-clipping. Compression and limiting are typically both used on popular tracks, but it is clear that much of the compression is used before mix down time rather than mastering (stereo 2-channel) time, where limiting seems to be the rule.
f) The presence of LF noise on many bass-attenuated tracks can tell a fairly interesting story of the recording venues and the issues presented to the recording engineers on-site. Many instances of subharmonic noise exist at extremely high levels, indicating the presence of significant non-linear noise sources at recording time, as well as the presence of LF recording venue resonances. Some instruments make their own LF noise while the musicians play them: piano seems to be the poster child for self-noise levels, as well as harp.
g) The more you know about how mastering is done and the tools used, the easier and quicker it becomes to derive unmastering EQ curves and the better the unmastered results. The more you unmaster your tracks, the more you see buried in the track mastering practices, and the more recording and mixing issues that you uncover--some issues being quite severe but nevertheless camouflaged so that the casual listener cannot hear the flaws.
This is a tip of the iceberg of unmastering observations. Many more in-depth discussions are available on many different aspects of unmastering and the original mastering and mixing processes that were used.
Chris
Actually, if you look at the "sound engineer" (really the recording engineer, sometimes also the mixing engineer), what you'll see is that there is buried treasure underneath what the mastering guys did. Mastering engineers typically don't have a lot of contact with the recording or mixing engineers, or even the recording musicians themselves.
The best example of this that I've run across in the unmastering process is John Eargle, who received Grammy awards, but whose best work is to be found after unmastering.
I highly recommend his recordings for Delos, but only if they are first released from their prison of "mastering" that completely disguises these truly spectacular recordings.
YMMV.
Chris
The best example of this that I've run across in the unmastering process is John Eargle, who received Grammy awards, but whose best work is to be found after unmastering.
I highly recommend his recordings for Delos, but only if they are first released from their prison of "mastering" that completely disguises these truly spectacular recordings.
YMMV.
Chris
For instance, Mussorgsky's "Dream of the Peasant Gritzko": you know it as "Night on Bald Mountain". It's pretty spectacular after correcting its mastering EQ that was applied after Eargle recorded and mixed it. The unmastering EQ curve is shown below the album art: it's about as severe as it gets...
The XML equalization import file for Audacity is available here: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=114660
The XML equalization import file for Audacity is available here: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=114660
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.