|
Post by LesC on Jun 23, 2017 0:34:23 GMT -6
What do you guys do when one bass note rings too loud? Even when I automate volume, it's never right. If you're talking about bass guitar, usually that's imperfect playing most often for me. No real way to fix it other than play it again until it sits right. If it's the same frequency on different varieties of material, could be a room mode. Room treatment would be advised, but small changes in seating and speaker positioning can make huge differences also. You can test this on YouTube by searching for "Frequency Sweep" videos. Just be careful with the volume of these. Or you can get really into it an plot waterfall graphs of your listening position measured with a relatively flat omni mic. There are some cheap measurement mics from Behringer for example. The software is free. Forget what it's called. You might be thinking of REW. I use it to help get me in the ballpark whenever I make any major changes. Then I use my MiniDSP Dirac box for fine-tuning response characteristics of my Unity Audio The Rock MkII monitors and 2 SVS SB-2000's, which are 12-inch sealed-box subs.
|
|
|
Post by massivemastering on Jun 23, 2017 1:19:47 GMT -6
John, what near fields have you found workable? Hey - Don't take my word for it -- But Equator. D5's and D8's. (Deleted the rest of a long, brand-specific rant as to not offend). Actually considered building a surround rig based on the D8's (but able to sum to the Tylers). Might still do it some day, but surround requests are so rare... That said, if I had a decent surround rig, maybe I'd get more requests. #ChickenOrEgg
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 23, 2017 2:35:00 GMT -6
Free software for room measuring is... www.roomeqwizard.comWhat do you guys do when one bass note rings too loud? Even when I automate volume, it's never right. If you're talking about bass guitar, usually that's imperfect playing most often for me. No real way to fix it other than play it again until it sits right. If it's the same frequency on different varieties of material, could be a room mode. Room treatment would be advised, but small changes in seating and speaker positioning can make huge differences also. You can test this on YouTube by searching for "Frequency Sweep" videos. Just be careful with the volume of these. Or you can get really into it an plot waterfall graphs of your listening position measured with a relatively flat omni mic. There are some cheap measurement mics from Behringer for example. The software is free. Forget what it's called.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Jun 23, 2017 11:55:27 GMT -6
What do you guys do when one bass note rings too loud? Even when I automate volume, it's never right. It's usually a lower harmonic or set of harmonics ringing too much, very often the fundamental. You can go right in and EQ those frequencies, or apply band-specific compression. The timbre of those notes will still probably be at least a little different. Cheekiest option would be to drop in the nearest note that rings normally and pitch shift it!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 23, 2017 12:09:35 GMT -6
Cheekiest option would be to drop in the nearest note that rings normally and pitch shift it! Damn, that's just so wrong it could be right. I've never considered it before. It's not as easy as fixing or changing an existing note because you have to find a donor somewhere else, and hopefully with a similar length and/or articulation etc, but it's definitely worth considering as an option.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 23, 2017 12:32:36 GMT -6
It happened that i just worked the whole night on the mix of a super low budget recording of a death metal band that happens to be my next (live) band after 20 yrs. of not playing in a traditional band project... What a story......... (Nobody asked for levels or preferred DR, so the sampler would work anyhow...so DRs and levels may be all over the place...)For this genre i chose to go down to DR7 finally, while my favourite mix was DR14, but i am pretty sure it would go lost on this sampler. And yes, it will make it to physical media (CD), not just online....the musicians performances actually are quite good under these circumstances. So it might work out anyhow... Thank you for the in-depth peek behind the curtain at what you sometimes have to deal with! Is sounds like those guys are lucky to have you, and that you are giving them the very best shot they could hope for under the circumstances.
Please pardon my ignorance, but what is "DR" in this context? DR7 vs DR14?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 23, 2017 12:57:02 GMT -6
John, what near fields have you found workable? Hey - Don't take my word for it -- But Equator. D5's and D8's. (Deleted the rest of a long, brand-specific rant as to not offend). Actually considered building a surround rig based on the D8's (but able to sum to the Tylers). Might still do it some day, but surround requests are so rare... That said, if I had a decent surround rig, maybe I'd get more requests. #ChickenOrEgg I had to look up Equator, and imo that is a VERY INTERESTING design! The D8 in particular is a relatively big (8" cone) coaxial - bigger cone than normal for a little nearfield monitor, which translates to better radiation pattern control and (because the cone is the "horn" for the tweeter) a bit higher SPL before woofer cone motion starts to degrade tweeter clarity (one of the limitations of a coaxial that doesn't use a separate horn). I like their design choices and am totally intimidated by what they offer at such a modest price. Of course none of this tells me how the speaker actually sounds, but the design choices that I can see look very intelligent to me. Coaxial is one of two formats I'm looking at. And personally I prefer the woofercone-as-horn format Equator uses for their D series versus their Q series, with its separate coaxial horn.
Thank you for mentioning these.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 23, 2017 13:03:33 GMT -6
DR=dynamic range. As measured by the offline analysis tool: found here dr.loudness-war.info/Speaks to the mastering dynamics of a retail release. It's not a simple RMS, but think of it that way---it's a kind of algorithmically averaged peak to valley range. DR6 is a normal modern master. DR11-14 were 98% of masters from 1973-1995. The 50/s60s recordings (meaning of pop/rock) lacked....they were more like DR9-11 due to the lack of fidelity of the old tape machines....and lack of VCA compression to make transients punch harder....and various stylistic balance preferences. In the early/mid 90s, lookahead limiters changed that now that there was no need to master for vinyl, where DR14 was actually "louder" and less noisy on playback than DR8....on CD, lower range=louder. So, the irony was that the shift to a format that could represent MORE dynamic range.....manifested into less and less.
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 23, 2017 14:28:46 GMT -6
DR=dynamic range. As measured by the offline analysis tool: found here dr.loudness-war.info/Speaks to the mastering dynamics of a retail release. It's not a simple RMS, but think of it that way---it's a kind of algorithmically averaged peak to valley range. DR6 is a normal modern master. DR11-14 were 98% of masters from 1973-1995. The 50/s60s recordings (meaning of pop/rock) lacked....they were more like DR9-11 due to the lack of fidelity of the old tape machines....and lack of VCA compression to make transients punch harder....and various stylistic balance preferences. In the early/mid 90s, lookahead limiters changed that now that there was no need to master for vinyl, where DR14 was actually "louder" and less noisy on playback than DR8....on CD, lower range=louder. So, the irony was that the shift to a format that could represent MORE dynamic range.....manifested into less and less. Thank you very much! I didn't realize how precisely a specific dynamic range could be targeted. Sad how, now that so much dynamic range is finally available, market demands keep it from being taken advantage of.
Over on the speaker design end of things, at least in home audio, preserving the dynamic range on the recording is imo a worthwhile goal. As the SPL goes up, drivers can be susceptible to "thermal modulation", which is like a short-time-constant version of thermal compression. Thermal modulation can soften the peaks, and when one driver has more thermal modulation than the others, the tonal balance can actually shift on peaks. Thermal modulation has not been investigated in depth like thermal compression has, but I have it on reasonably good authority - conversation with Floyd Toole - that it's a real thing. Toole told me of measuring a high-end home audio speaker whose midrange driver exhibited 7 dB(!) of thermal modulation on peaks at SPLs in the lower 90's, whereas the woofer and tweeter had essentially negligible thermal modulation. I believe a certain fairly widely-respected studio monitor has just the opposite going on, with the midrange driver having audibly less thermal modulation on peaks than the woofer and tweeter, but I have no measurements to back up this theory. Anyway the "brute force" solution is, to only use drivers which have a lot of thermal headroom left in the tank even on peaks.
My guess is that ideally you'd want well thought-out, "representative" thermal modulation on mixing monitors (in the interest of getting a mix that translates well), but that you probably wouldn't want any thermal modulation on tracking and mastering monitors. Any thoughts about this?
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 23, 2017 21:06:02 GMT -6
No thoughts that would be of value. #firstTimeEverTypedOnInternets ...I just wanted to clarify what the DR reference being made was about....
|
|
|
Post by duke on Jun 23, 2017 22:15:24 GMT -6
No thoughts that would be of value. #firstTimeEverTypedOnInternets ...I just wanted to clarify what the DR reference being made was about.... Your clarification about DR was quite educational! I'm the one who came up with a tangent and then tripped over it...
|
|