The problem with this discussion (loudspeaker integration into your own room's acoustics) is that it isn't presently relevant to the discussion of where it started in this thread. When you look at the pdf tutorials whose links I provided above, perhaps this point will be much clearer.
Mastering necessarily involves humans listening in their rooms and making adjustments. This part of the process is augmented by the techniques listed in the tutorials--listening is always the final QA step, and the step that is the most sensitive to small changes.
Demastering using loudspeakers with directivity issues also introduces issues, but note that they will be issues that are compensated for during demastering in the rooms where the person is working--the better the room/loudspeaker acoustics, the more portable the resulting mastered or demastered recordings.
This is particularly true of frequencies below 100 Hz, where the equal loudness curves get closer and closer together, as Toole pointed out a couple of years ago in his on-line video in Canada. Small changes in SPL at those frequencies yield disproportionate changes in Phons perceived. However, since you're demastering in your own room, you get to make the choices, unlike commercially released recordings.
If you wish to continue to talk at length about loudspeaker-room interactions and not directly address the subject of this thread, I'm okay with going that direction. It seems a bit odd, however.
Chris
Mastering necessarily involves humans listening in their rooms and making adjustments. This part of the process is augmented by the techniques listed in the tutorials--listening is always the final QA step, and the step that is the most sensitive to small changes.
Demastering using loudspeakers with directivity issues also introduces issues, but note that they will be issues that are compensated for during demastering in the rooms where the person is working--the better the room/loudspeaker acoustics, the more portable the resulting mastered or demastered recordings.
This is particularly true of frequencies below 100 Hz, where the equal loudness curves get closer and closer together, as Toole pointed out a couple of years ago in his on-line video in Canada. Small changes in SPL at those frequencies yield disproportionate changes in Phons perceived. However, since you're demastering in your own room, you get to make the choices, unlike commercially released recordings.
If you wish to continue to talk at length about loudspeaker-room interactions and not directly address the subject of this thread, I'm okay with going that direction. It seems a bit odd, however.
Chris
Wrong part of the spectrum, Chris.
Sorry - I read kHz.
That low of a frequency is at HVAC frequencies. I see a lot of problems in recordings at 19, 21, 24, 29, and sometimes 34 Hz (sometimes more). I usually don't pay a lot of attention to sub-20 Hz issues since they must be extremely loud to hear and usually are low enough in amplitude not to create audible FM sidebands at higher frequencies.
Chris
Last edited:
wrt to the 5.1 having more low end I have noted that Chandos, when they do a hybrid SACD release the redbook layer with the same low end as the 5.1 . An example shown attached from the remastering thread. There is a lot of LF energy which is part of the venue and I think something missing from the realism in a normal home environment. It was recorded in Royal concert hall Glasgow which is a 2500 seater auditorium. Note this is one small sample not a trend of any sort. But I do recommend the label for great recordings.
Attachments
Yes, we are NOT directly addressing the subject of this thread, but it is related. Let me explain how. You brought up the claim that classical recordings sound better with a significant bass boost. If this were indeed true, then it would change the classical spectrum posted in this thread. I find that rather hard to believe and suggested that maybe it might be the room/loudspeaker interaction that is causing a perception of a lack of bass in the recording. There are other possibilities as well, but this seems like the obvious one.
What keeps me from believing that a boost is needed is that fact that it sounds quite balanced on my system and I have about a rising response below 100 Hz. Anything more and it would just dominate the whole sound, i.e., sound unbalanced.
There are some recordings that I wish had a bit more here and bit more there, but I don't think I've heard anything that is as severely unbalanced. And even on such recordings, it does not stop me from enjoying them.
Anyway, I'll check out your remastering pdfs, like I said earlier and then get back to you. Thanks!
What keeps me from believing that a boost is needed is that fact that it sounds quite balanced on my system and I have about a rising response below 100 Hz. Anything more and it would just dominate the whole sound, i.e., sound unbalanced.
There are some recordings that I wish had a bit more here and bit more there, but I don't think I've heard anything that is as severely unbalanced. And even on such recordings, it does not stop me from enjoying them.
Anyway, I'll check out your remastering pdfs, like I said earlier and then get back to you. Thanks!
Bill: Thanks for that since it really releases me from the more onerous task of posting and defending the same PSD plots.
I've found the same thing, and there are a lot of recordings that benefit from sub-40 Hz performance. It's just that many of those have been recorded in the last 20-25 years.
There is quite a catalog of recordings predating that period that I believe many tend to think of as "the baseline". I rather think of the newer more hi-fi classical recordings as closer to the "real thing". All of my hybrid SACDs (PCM layers) and other 5.1 classical recordings show the same differences, even on the stereo PCM layers.
Chris
I've found the same thing, and there are a lot of recordings that benefit from sub-40 Hz performance. It's just that many of those have been recorded in the last 20-25 years.
There is quite a catalog of recordings predating that period that I believe many tend to think of as "the baseline". I rather think of the newer more hi-fi classical recordings as closer to the "real thing". All of my hybrid SACDs (PCM layers) and other 5.1 classical recordings show the same differences, even on the stereo PCM layers.
Chris
I'd suggest some of them make a right hash of it. Many want to be able to "remaster" recordings. I found this thread when I was looking for a high quality flexible tone control Cello Palette Style EQ Design (was High End Tone Control)...
I found the discussion interesting. I have built the Doug Self preamp with tunable bass and treble and found it useful for ironing out some inadequacies in recordings.
You would have thought so. Let me try and do some compares if I get time tonight (actually doing some soldering at the moment...woo). But as I have some golden era recordings (decca monos and living presence) as well as some very recent releases I can try and do a simple compare and see if I can get anything of use. Will not be as good as the stuff pano has already done though.
Maybe I'm not reading that right, but it looks like you are saying that the Chandos SACD and Redbook versions have the same low end?
And Chris is saying that SACD typically has more low end?
I no longer own any SACD or DVD-A and got rid of my two players, nice as they were. So no SACD analysis from me.
[See the following thread for using a DSP crossover to have Cello palette capabilities: Cello Palette - EV DC-One simulation program settings - Technical/Modifications - The Klipsch Audio Community]
The problem with correcting the EQ every time that you play the recording is that you have to adjust those settings each time you play it, then change it for the next recording. Additionally, not having a visual representation for what is occurring on each track is a huge deficit, I've found. The visual part allows you to quickly find and correct the major issues in any track, in terms of EQ, noise, clipping, and album leveling. The listening part is the fine tuning, aided by spectrogram views, which are also quite sensitive.
When you demaster a recording, it's done. You can later easily tweak the demastered versions with no penalties in SQ, finally arriving at much better sounding recordings.
ra7: I think you sell yourself far too short. If I had found that it was "too hard", I would've quit demastering at the time I started. It's been extremely rewarding in terms of the resulting products and the knowledge gained, and is something that I believe that anyone that builds diy loudspeakers and electronics could do, assuming that they have reasonably calibrated hearing, or at least the willingness to develop it (i.e., ear training, not acuity).
Chris
The problem with correcting the EQ every time that you play the recording is that you have to adjust those settings each time you play it, then change it for the next recording. Additionally, not having a visual representation for what is occurring on each track is a huge deficit, I've found. The visual part allows you to quickly find and correct the major issues in any track, in terms of EQ, noise, clipping, and album leveling. The listening part is the fine tuning, aided by spectrogram views, which are also quite sensitive.
When you demaster a recording, it's done. You can later easily tweak the demastered versions with no penalties in SQ, finally arriving at much better sounding recordings.
ra7: I think you sell yourself far too short. If I had found that it was "too hard", I would've quit demastering at the time I started. It's been extremely rewarding in terms of the resulting products and the knowledge gained, and is something that I believe that anyone that builds diy loudspeakers and electronics could do, assuming that they have reasonably calibrated hearing, or at least the willingness to develop it (i.e., ear training, not acuity).
Chris
Last edited:
My desire to re-EQ a recording rarely has anything to do with the ends of the spectrum, it's the middle that is my problem. I started looking at the musical spectrum years ago to try to understand why some recordings sound so well balanced, while others seem harsh or shrill. What's the difference in the tonal balance? Mostly it's in the upper mids, which doesn't surprise me. Having spent a few years in front of a mixing console, when I hear something off balance, my hand automatically reaches for a certain EQ knob. That's my reflex guide.
Yes, that's true: most of the recordings that I stated with intact low end (unattenuated below 40 Hz) are usually SACDs, DVD-As, and music/video BDs. Even the Linn discs that I mentioned are typically hybrid SACDs.
My desire to re-EQ a recording rarely has anything to do with the ends of the spectrum, it's the middle that is my problem. I started looking at the musical spectrum years ago to try to understand why some recordings sound so well balanced, while others seem harsh or shrill. What's the difference in the tonal balance? Mostly it's in the upper mids, which doesn't surprise me. Having spent a few years in front of a mixing console, when I hear something off balance, my hand automatically reaches for a certain EQ knob. That's my reflex guide.
Now this I can agree with wholeheartedly. I simply started out with correcting severely attenuated low ends on recordings, then quickly progressed (within a day or so) to looking across the cumulative PSDs at what was occurring. That quickly became the focus. The fact that the low ends of the same recordings also needed rebalancing (or perhaps re-EQing at playback time using Cello palette, etc. if that's your choice) was not much of a stretch if the 1-4 kHz band was exaggerated also.
Here is an approximate mastering EQ curve that I found on a CD that I really don't listen to, but I acquired for a friend to see why his listening fatigue was being set off by this album:
I'd have a headache if I listened at high SPL to that, too. The answer that I provided back to him however wasn't satisfying since the EQ required to tame those album tracks rendered the result listenable but uninteresting. That's an alternative/grunge genre issue, I'm afraid.
Are these mono signals (L + R) where the spectrum is calculated from ?
I would also like to see spectrum of channel differences (L - R).
.
Pano, no worries if you don't have the database still/etc, but any way to analyze this solely as peak output per frequency bin than energy in each bin? As far as "sizing" one's playback, total energy is less valuable than max output needed.
No worries if not, maybe I'll get off my duff and build the Python script to run through my library.
No worries if not, maybe I'll get off my duff and build the Python script to run through my library.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.