Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
What you're describing is an awful lot like something I encountered on a
Bowie CD in 2000... Right before I left the US to get married I got ahold of
a -gasp!- CD extended single of "I'm Afraid of Americans"... The first title
cut is fine, and the second, a remix with Ice-T... but the third track had
this really annoying low freq sound, repeated rhythmically (making it even
more annoying)... it made my woofers make a wet 'dlptdlptdlpt' (think of
your lips imitating a motor boat, lowered around 10 octaves?) sound that
frankly made me wonder if the track was engineered for those
half-the-size-of-the-trunk subwoofers for vehicles most of the world outside
LA wouldn't see until "Fast and Furious" came out... I so avoided the track
that I burned the other tracks to my own CD, making a 10-minute version of
the title song.
While it made me wonder if the track was deliberately done that way, to
rattle the car next to you.. what you're saying here balances it out for me.
Maybe the track was just a victim of too much work.. Did anyone else get
this disc?
Sorry to interrupt with the OT musing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Krispen Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>
To: < Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>Sent: Monday, 7 January, 2008 15:26 PM
Subject: Re: Powered Subs...on to mastering> I've been doing a lot of mastering and mixing lately on a project and have
> learned a lot of new methods and techniques. I've heard folks say
> mastering and mixing is a black art, now I know why. In these particular
> songs, they sounded wonderful on my headphones. There were some really
> cool and deep things going on in the 44hz range and below, and some others
> in the 62hz range. It all sounded great through my headphones, but those
> frequencies were reeking havoc on my consumer stereo systems - car stereo,
> portable stereo, etc. They were really prominent resonant frequencies that
> were rattling the hell out of the speakers and causing distortion. And it
> wasn't a level problem...all my stuff was compressed/limited and below
> 0db, and there was no redlining in my original recordings. It only had to
> address troublesome resonant frequencies. So, I had to go back and
> re-master the files, adding a high pass filter that rolled everything off
> below 60hz. That did the trick, but I really miss the sound in the
> headphones. And I'm sure there are some hi fi systems that would have
> produced the original files well, but I can't expect everyone to have a
> system like that. Then I started fine tuning some of the other songs,
> doing a frequency spectrum analysis, watching and listening for other
> resonant frequencies, unusual spikes, etc....correcting them with various
> parametric EQs and so on. Then it got complicated, because if I was
> altering a whole mix, then I could not fix one problem from an instrument
> in the mix, without changing the frequency of another instrument...so I go
> back to the source tracks/wavs, etc, etc. I could spend hours and hour
> just on one song and still not be satisfied with the results, or waver
> between two different approaches. Is there a simpler approach?
>
> I'm wondering what others uses as a consistent approach to
> mixing/mastering their music. For example, after you remove the DC
> offset, do you apply a unique approach to applying EQ? What about
> compression/limiting? On average, how much of a threshold do you apply?
> Do you suck the dynamic range out of your mixes to maximize volume, or are
> you very conservative and preserve as much of the original dynamic range
> as possible, sacrificing some volume. What sort of tools are you using? I
> use Waves L2, and the whole sweet of others in that package. Ever use
> Waves MaxxBass? I read some articles that recommended it during the master
> process, but I did not like the results. It altered too many other
> frequencies in my mix beyond my original intent.
>
> Moreover, the idealist/purist in me would like to preserve as much of my
> original dynamic range and frequency character as possible. And, quite
> honestly, if I ever catch a sound guy altering the EQ on my guitar when it
> is was not meant to correct a problem but only server his own idea of how
> a guitar should sound, he will hear some sharp words from me. I spend a
> lot of time on the tone of my guitar, and do not appreciate a sound guy
> butchering it because of his own sound aesthetic. As they say, "If it
> ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
> So, if I want to preserve as much of my dynamic range and EQ as possible,
> what is the bare minimum I should be doing to my final mixes to ensure
> they don't generate problems on the average listener's stereo system? One
> source I found said to elminate anything below 60hz because most systems
> wouldn't be ableto represent it. I suppose if I wanted to be a purist, I
> would only ensure my overall level is at or close to 0db, and not apply
> any compression whatsoever...because once you do that, you are already
> altering the original dynamic range of the piece. Then, in principle, I
> should not have to mess with frequencies with EQ whatsoever, unless there
> are serious playback issues on common stereo systems. That is the
> direction I would like to head, but I struggle with competing with other
> mixes out there in the same genre that are so ridiculously loud because of
> the amount of compression/limiting applied, followed by level increases.
> How much of a change in dynamic range, from original source to mastered
> recording can a human ear identify? If, just as an example, I start with
> a -60db to 0db range (where only 10% of my material is above -10db), and
> master my file so that 40% of my material is above -10db, what am I
> sacrificing to obtain an overall perceived increase in level? I suppose
> this is where the black art comes in, because it's not as if there were a
> low of physics that dictates how this should be done; rather it is based
> on subjective or relative engineering practices.
>
> Any thoughts or best practices would be appreciated here on how to be both
> a sound source preservationist, yet a playback friendly sound engineer at
> the same time.
>
> Kris
>
>
>
>
>> Krispen Hartung wrote:
>>> As many folks know on the list, I use laptop processing via max (looper,
>>> other octave effects) that completely transform the sound of my guitar.
>>> It is not uncommon for me to play a low E on the guitar (82.4hz), and
>>> then apply a two octave drop. I'm not sure what that would be.
>> Divide the frequency by two for each octave you drop. (Multiply by two
>> for every octave you raise.) 82.4/4 = 20.6Hz. You're definitely into
>> the subwoofer's range.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>
>
>
>