Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Keith Garratt" 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.

Listen to the drumkit sounds Arny, they are not *that*
far off, as for getting the tonal balance where it would
have been if it was all close miked, yes, but it isn't
and you can't (only) eq your way out of a mix balance
problem.

I was looking at the *whole* recording.

Which is the right thing to do, but one must also
consider every single individual element that make
up that whole, and ensure that excess overall EQ
does not affect them adversely.

Also, I was using monitors that probably differ from
yours. Back in the days when I lived in Germany, it
seemed like *every* European speaker sounded shrill to
me. I don't know what things are like today, but many of
the European speakers we get over hear seem to run
hotter from the midrange on up.

Neither Tannoy, B+W or Kef either, are considered bright.

They are not European, they are British.


A facility here has a pair of American JBL monitors
which I like very much.

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general run
far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


As I tried to tell Arny, radicdal EQ (and it doesn't come
more radical than +15dB at 15kHz) should not be applied
on overall mixes as it can improve some elements of the
mix but adversely affect others.

And then Iain you provided a track with even more eq than that, particularly
in the midrange. and blamed me for it.

So how much did you coach the engineer friend who actually did the work,
apparently with outdated equipment?

Is this too mellow?
 

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


As I tried to tell Arny, radicdal EQ (and it doesn't come
more radical than +15dB at 15kHz) should not be applied
on overall mixes as it can improve some elements of the
mix but adversely affect others.

And then Iain you provided a track with even more eq than that,
particularly in the midrange. and blamed me for it.


The track I provided was EQ precisely to your suggestion.
If your instructions were incorrect and the version is not
as you intended, you are welcome to post a corrrection,
fr us all to compare.

If you cannot or will not do this, there is no point
in discussing this matter with you further.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:

But despite that, the other posts and
contributions to this thread have been most interesting,


They have indeed and it's pleasing to see some 'new blood'
appearing/re-appearing - metaphorically speaking, of course!

I have a feeling that we might have more contributors for the
next title so we shal need to edit a backing track with a couple
more choruses. Does anyone here play bagpipes or ophicleide? :-)


and
we can expand the experiment further by breaking the recording
down track by track and see what effect signal processing
has.

OK, but let's not *science* it to death - a pleasant-sounding/foot-tapping
track is all, in my book!

Yes, in retrospect I agree. It's not a recording arts project,
it's just a group/domestic get-together, a bit of fun. Let's keep
it like that.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general run
far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

I was happy with it as it was, but your "broad dip at 100Hz"
was acceptable, and gave the rhythm section a lighter feel
so I did not dislike it.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Keith Garratt" 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.

Listen to the drumkit sounds Arny, they are not *that* far off, as for
getting the tonal balance where it would have been if it was all close
miked, yes, but it isn't and you can't (only) eq your way out of a mix
balance problem.

I can't make my mind up as to whether this is from a pair, but I think so,
even if it lacks ambience. It could be some small thingamajic on a table
... that height above the floor would fit the 250 Hz dip being caused by a
floor reflection and the balance fits the drumkit being to the rear of the
""stage"" and partly in acoustic shadow.

Presumably you talking about the drums only, Peter, when say "from a pair".
Although the playing is simple, the kit is multi mic, BD, snare and OHs, so
no "small thingamajic on a table"

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

bcoombes wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

You are the sum of your postings.

Nietzsche ?

More like nonsense. Or perhaps a somewhat sad autobiographical comment.

More likely, our internet personas in various contexts relate a
time-weighted average of the of our postings in that context.

I view newsgroup postings as being personal interactive infotainment.

Yeah, anyone with any sense views it that way Arny, if you thought
otherwise I beg to suggest you have been misinterpreting the 'mood' of
most posts. See my forthcoming book.. "Usenet Posting.. An Insufficient
Vehicle for Irony."




I just posted the other day - you are wasting your time on Yanks with
*irony* - they don't get it, they never had an Iron Age....

Is this too mellow?
 

Keith G wrote:
bcoombes wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:21:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

You are the sum of your postings.

Nietzsche ?

More like nonsense. Or perhaps a somewhat sad autobiographical comment.

More likely, our internet personas in various contexts relate a
time-weighted average of the of our postings in that context.

I view newsgroup postings as being personal interactive infotainment.

Yeah, anyone with any sense views it that way Arny, if you thought
otherwise I beg to suggest you have been misinterpreting the 'mood' of
most posts. See my forthcoming book.. "Usenet Posting.. An
Insufficient Vehicle for Irony."

....they never had an Iron Age....


Lol, consequence of being an 'immigrant' nation I suppose

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general run
far richer.

And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.

That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are exactly
complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be the lowest end of
midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be bass.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
Also, the American idea of bass seems to in general run
far richer.
And yet you proposed "a broad dip" around 100Hz.
That might be your idea of bass, Iain.

But you contradict yourself with your statement above,
and then thinning out the LF.

No contradiction at all. In fact the two statements are exactly
complementary.

I don't consider 100 Hz to be bass. I consider it to be the lowest end of
midrange. I consider 32-64 Hz to be bass.



Shirley you mean 20 Hz to 80 Hz. I've got a Studiomaster C180 active crossover
with exchangeable cards, the lowest one they do is 80 Hz and you can get 120 Hz
ones.

--
Bill Coombes