Is this too mellow?
 

There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe in the
recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax, maybe a MP3 artifact.
Whatever it is, the eq'd version emphasises it.

Is this too mellow?
 

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

Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using
Opticom (Fraunhofer) mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC
SCM100A primarily, but also checked via Rogers LS5/8
and Genelec 1031A.


Audix has posted here only once before in the history
of Usenet, according to google.
Whooo!! This must be *really* important to ya huh Amy..
Goggling up peoples posting history.. LMAO

The laugh's on you if you take a created-for-the purpose nym's word for
being authoritative.

In this case, you're just admitting how hard it would be for you to do a
simple check like this.

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Audix wrote:


Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom

Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like
they are doing some interesting work on analysing
perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of course.

(Fraunhofer)
mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but
also checked via Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.


A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

What you don't seem to know is that the Fraunhofer MP3 decoder has been
around for a long time. Since they co-invented MP3, not so bad. It shows up
in all sorts of programs, both cheap and not-so-cheap.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:48:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Obviously someone that Iain brought in since no regular was supporting him,
probably a member of that unknown audio group that has excluded me. ;-)
(dev.nul = autobiographical?) has posted here only once
before in the history of Usenet, according to google.


What a strange accusation.

For the record, I have no connection with any of the persons posting
in this thread. The reason you don't see many of my posts is that I
usually have the no-archive flag set and refrain from posting unless I
think I have some useful input.

Unfortunately, the personal bickering sometimes evident within this
group makes one reluctant to post more often.

Nevertheless, perhaps my comments were of some use or interest to the
original poster.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


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

Here's the post where Iain demonstrates his fear of equalization. At this
point we see that Iain thinks of eq only in terms of the peak increase or
decrease, and completely ignores the well-known (to many of us) effects of
center frequency and bandwidth on the audible effects of the eq. One can
presume that if Iain were faced with some music that through bad handling
required 5 dB of boost in the 1/3 octave around 15 KHz, his hand would start
shaking on the eq dial, and he would not be able to bring himself to do the
deed.

Is this too mellow?
 

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

Who am I? - A retired sound recording engineer
approaching his sixties.

What was I listening on? - Playback from PC using Opticom
Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like
they are doing some interesting work on analysing
perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of course.

(Fraunhofer)
mp3 codec. Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but
also checked via Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.

A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

What you don't seem to know is that the Fraunhofer MP3 decoder has been
around for a long time.

No **** Sherlock.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

exalted wombat wrote:
There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe in the
recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax, maybe a MP3 artifact.
Whatever it is, the eq'd version emphasises it.

Love that screen name LP. :):)

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:00:45 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:



Just had a look around the Opticom website..looks like they are doing some
interesting work on analysing perceptual measurement of voice n'stuff. German of
course.

I was involved in developing digital audio delivery systems for the
visually impaired. My early contact was with the Fraunhofer Institute,
when mp3 was in its infancy. Later commercial exploitation was handled
by Opticom.

There is a basic implementation of the Fraunhofer mp3 codec built into
the various Windows operating systems. The codec has been refined and
tweaked over the years and is available as a professional version from
Opticom.


Monitoring via ATC SCM100A primarily, but also checked via
Rogers LS5/8 and Genelec 1031A.


A nice bunch of speakers to have access to.

Largely the result of hearing them in my professional life and
deciding I liked them enough to purchase for home use.

I blame various people for leading me astray.

The ATCs came about after spending some time with Nimbus.

LS5/8s were often heard during visits to the BBC and the late Angus
McKenzie.

The Genelecs were the result of trying to find a good small-ish
speaker to install in a suite of speech recording studios. I
discovered that the 1031A was a rather good unit.

I can make analytical judgements and enjoy listening to good music on
any of them.

I prefer active monitors as you have a fixed entity. The only passives
I have are the LS3/5As which are normally powered by BBC designed
AM8/17 monoblocks.

Interestingly, all my speaker choices were initially made by live A /
B comparisons with the source performance, rather than using
commercial CDs etc.

Is this too mellow?
 

"exalted wombat" wrote in
message

This time first time poster who showed up to throw a little dirt around...


There's some distortion in the sax sound at 2.44. Maybe
in the recording chain, maybe spit sound from the sax,
maybe a MP3 artifact. Whatever it is, the eq'd version
emphasises it.

If its spit, its not distortion. Since you don't know, your comment is
meaningless.

But this makes a point - nobody knows for sure what's *right* without a more
reliable reference than whatever they might remember.

But you probably think you deserve some kind of award for figuring up that a
linear slope starting at 1 KHz and ending up at +15 KHz would increase the
intensity of sound at 2.44 KHz.

Of course the mention of 2.44 KHz as opposed to 2.43 or 2.45 KHz is
sheerist BS. Nobody can hear in 100ths of an octave. But a fertile
imagination can!

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:40:36 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

I'm trombone, not clarinet. And, sadly, more ex-trombone. It's one
of those things that aren't worth doing unless you do them every day,
and work moved in other directions many years ago.

Don't be so modest Laurence. We invited you, not Don Lusher!
(he's indisposed anyway:-)

It's not modesty! I really haven't taken it out the case for years.