Is this too mellow?
 

On 11/01/2010 14:01, Keith G wrote:

Righty ho, I have had a bit of a to-do with the new computer swap over
and the 'Georgia' links might have gone missing for a while - these
should work, if I haven't cocked it all up:

Original:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


EQ'd as per *free* recommendation by Arny!:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


So let's be having the 'overly mellow?' vs. 'glassy?' votes then!

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

Keith G wrote:
On 11/01/2010 14:01, Keith G wrote:

Righty ho, I have had a bit of a to-do with the new computer swap over
and the 'Georgia' links might have gone missing for a while - these
should work, if I haven't cocked it all up:

Original:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


EQ'd as per *free* recommendation by Arny!:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


So let's be having the 'overly mellow?' vs. 'glassy?' votes then!

:-)



OK, no takers (no surprise)....

Well, I prefer the original version - the brighter version sounds a
little too 'paper and comb/Kazoo' in places for my liking but I can see
why some people might prefer it.

(I don't think Arny did too bad a job on it - for *free*!! ;-)

Interestingly though, for 'too mellow' on the original version, there
are a pair of the supposedly 'overbright' C1000s in the mix!!

Maybe another one soon...??

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
On 11/01/2010 14:01, Keith G wrote:

Righty ho, I have had a bit of a to-do with the new computer swap over and
the 'Georgia' links might have gone missing for a while - these should
work, if I haven't cocked it all up:

Original:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


EQ'd as per *free* recommendation by Arny!:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


So let's be having the 'overly mellow?' vs. 'glassy?' votes then!

:-)

It would be interesting to know what the performers think.

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
On 11/01/2010 14:01, Keith G wrote:

Righty ho, I have had a bit of a to-do with the new computer swap over and
the 'Georgia' links might have gone missing for a while - these should
work, if I haven't cocked it all up:

Original:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


EQ'd as per *free* recommendation by Arny!:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


So let's be having the 'overly mellow?' vs. 'glassy?' votes then!

:-)

It would be interesting to know what the performers think.


OK, the clarinettist prefers the original and thinks the second one is
too bright, but then somewhat controversially says the instruments sound
more real in the EQ'd version!!

(Is what I was told..??)

How about the saxophonist..??

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
On 11/01/2010 14:01, Keith G wrote:

Righty ho, I have had a bit of a to-do with the new
computer swap over and the 'Georgia' links might have
gone missing for a while - these should work, if I
haven't cocked it all up: Original:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


EQ'd as per *free* recommendation by Arny!:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


So let's be having the 'overly mellow?' vs. 'glassy?'
votes then! :-)

It would be interesting to know what the performers think.

Intersting but irrelevant. Performers are generally too close to their
instruments to hear the same thing as their audience hears.

That's one of the neat things about both being a recordist and/or live
sound tech - the instruments keep playing when you walk away from them and
try to listen to what the audience hears.

Is this too mellow?
 

Keith G wrote:

just how much *authoratitive tosh* gets sprayed about by the few
self-appointed 'mandarins' in this group!!


Yeah, too true blue, I've only been here a short time but I see that the
'mandarins' must hang around their computers waiting for any casual aside or
slightly ambiguous comment so that they can pounce to demonstrate their utter
technical superiority. I see all the 'usual' tricks..selective post editing/I'll
avoid the hard or challenging bit...straw men...deliberate misinterpretation to
bolster their 'case'...deliberate ambiguation....reversion to insults/snide
insinuation...assumptions that they *know* are unchallengeable...etc. Still
seems to be an amusing little froup and some of the peeps obviously do know
their onions. :)

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

bcoombes wrote:
Keith G wrote:

just how much *authoratitive tosh* gets sprayed about by the few
self-appointed 'mandarins' in this group!!


Yeah, too true blue, I've only been here a short time but I see that the
'mandarins' must hang around their computers waiting for any casual
aside or slightly ambiguous comment so that they can pounce to
demonstrate their utter technical superiority. I see all the 'usual'
tricks..selective post editing/I'll avoid the hard or challenging
bit...straw men...deliberate misinterpretation to bolster their
'case'...deliberate ambiguation....reversion to insults/snide
insinuation...assumptions that they *know* are unchallengeable...etc.
Still seems to be an amusing little froup and some of the peeps
obviously do know their onions. :)



Well, in the short time you've been here you seem to have got it all
pretty well weighed-up - a few of the clowns really do see themselves as
omniscient 'guides' and 'advisors' and they get awfully ****ty if you
won't let them pat you on the head! You probably already know who they
are, but the real worry now is at least one of them sees himself as a
*consultant*!! So watch what questions you ask, or you could find
yourself getting an *invoice*!

Let's face it, you can't guarantee the ****ing silly courts won't rule
that asking questions on newsgroups constitutes a tacit offer of a
remunerated contract for 'technical services'...!!

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

Keith G wrote:
bcoombes wrote:
Keith G wrote:


Let's face it, you can't guarantee the ****ing silly courts won't rule
that asking questions on newsgroups constitutes a tacit offer of a
remunerated contract for 'technical services'...!!


A few years ago I'd have laughed at that suggestion and said it was ridiculous..
but now we are living in an era where a symptom of the general stupidity is that
it's safer not to clear the snow and ice of your own bit of pavement in case you
could be held liable if you do and there is an accident...****ing unbelievable!

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Hmm. In comparisons, brighter, just like louder, is
found by many to be better. One also needs to compare
both with a real clarinet, to decide which sounds more
like the real thing.

The fallacy here is that a clarinet has only one timbre. In fact, its
timbre is highly dependent on its environment.

The clarinet has three very distinctive timbres irrespective
of "environment" (did you mean acoustic?) They are
associated with the three registers: the first, "chalumeau"
up to Bb4 , the second "clarion" from B4 to C6. The third,
altissimo covers about two octaves above C6.
They all sound totally different, irrespective of "environment"
Much of what Keith recorded is clarion.

He achieved a pretty good sound IMO even though he
probably didn't have access to any tutorial info. But he
listens to a lot of good music, and probably hears the clarinet
at home on a daily basis, and so knows how it really
sounds.


A clarinet is made of wood, not glass:-)

Based on the recordings that Iain has brought to us, his monitoring system
is on the bright side. My *reference system* on this PC is a pair of
ATH-M50 headphones, well known for their neutrality.

So you evaluate on headphones?

Try a pair of B+W 802D loudspeakers, the choice of most
UK recording companies.


Again Iain's problem is that he's judging a quick shot for the purpose of
guidance as if it were a finished recording, and probably doing so on a
playback system that would be too bright for me.

An unkinder man than I might suggest that you are piling on the HF
to compensate for hearing loss. I of course, would not
dream of making such a suggestion:-)

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Keith Garratt" wrote in message
...
On 10/01/2010 21:12, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith wrote in
message
Normally, I don't solicit (or usually get) comments
and/or criticisms when I post little 'fun' recordings
and vinyl transcription clips but this time I'm
curious - anybody got any comments on this one:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


Is it *too* mellow?

Yes.

Sounded better with a broad dip around 100 Hz, and a
linear 15 dB rise starting at 1 KHz and ending at 15
KHz.

OK.

No. Not OK.

An EQ slope starting at 1kHz and rising to +15dB
at 15kHz makes the track glassy and unnatural.

I'm buying some of that, but notice that I only said it sounded better
than the origional which is excessively mellow.

A clarinet in the clarino register *is* mellow.
A tenor saxophone *is* mellow* in all but
altissimmo register.

Do you have a clarinet in your Baptist ensemble?
If so, stand in front of him/her so that your head is
in an approximate equilateral triangle between the
bell of the instrument and the first open hole while
he/she plays E2 (that's only the first hole at the
top covered) Then listen -mellow isn't it? Try to
keep the two bottom angles of the triangle equal
and pull back even further. What do you notice?

If someone wants me to really fix something, they can pay my going rate.

Nobody asked you to "fix" anything, AFAIK.
Going rate? You are a volunteer church worker -
there is no "going rate" :-))

What I did for free was provide some guidance.

Misguidance? :-)


Arny should be taught how to evaluate a track by
listening, not by looking at a frequency analysis plot on a PC, and
trying to fill in what he thinks might be missing.

You're shooting off your mouth again, Iain. I did both.

Clearly not. Your recommendation "looks" passable but
"sounds" awful!

One should listen carefully to the instruments in their
own acoustic environment before even attempting to
capture them in a recording.

You're shooting off your mouth again, Iain. I currently spend more time
every week listening to instruments in their own acoustical environment
than you do.

Most unlikely. But your 1 000 projects do add up to
many more than most professional recording engineers
work on in a lifetime. But it is quality not quantity that
matters.

I's not how many hours you spend, but what accomnplish
and learn from those hours, and how you put that knowledge
and experience to use. I am pretty sure that any formally trained
professional recording engineer would be able to teach you
more in a few hours than you have been able to teach yourself
in a *dozen* years:-)


EQ on overall mixes is best kept to very moderate amounts,
perhaps 2-3dB.

That depends on how bad the problem is and where, Iain.

No. That's a general rule. You cannot apply large amounts
of EQ to overall mixes without adverse effects instrument to
instrument, section to section. That's were CD mastering
can, and sometimes does, goes wrong.

Larger changes need to be made on
individual instruments if they are required.

And that is one of the charms of multitrack recordings.

So why did you suggest a "total destruction EQ" for an
overall mix?

Iain