Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:22:56 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:

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. :):)

Yeah. I was at another computer and had to use Google Groups.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:27:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
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.

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

Not worth arguing. "Unwanted sound" then.

Have a listen. See what YOU think it is, and whether emphasising it
improves the mix. We could get this thread back on track.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
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.

Do it. Today:-)
To give you a bit of impetus:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Music/TTT.mp3

Regards
Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.

LOL:-)

I aways err on the side of caution, having been taught that
excessive amounts of EQ on overall mixes is not prudent.
Radical changes should only be made at channel or track
level. Many years of professional practical work has proved
this to be true. Never EQ anything just because you can -
only if after very careful comparison and evaluation, it needs it.

Recordings can easily be destroyed by excessive EQ.
You have demonstrated this point admirably by both
your suggestions to Keith for "Georgia", and your own
recording of "Domine".

But thanks for your participation anyway.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Audix" wrote in message
...
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.

Thanks, Audix, for your partiticipation in this thread. UKRA can
get a little boisterous at times, but nothing really compared with
some other audio groups:-) It would be pretty dull if we were
all in agreement in everything - same amp, no vinyl, no valves,
same speakers, etc.

Audio is no longer the hands-on hobby it used to be, but this
recording has been an attempt to do something practical, as
a group project.

Is this too mellow?
 

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



Probably the best way to sort out the wheat from the chaff, not an option
available to most of course. In an earlier [square wave] thread we were
discussing how the audio magazines seem to have deteriorated and I do remember
that at one time they would try to do 'live' comparisons...these days it's
mostly superficial comparisons based on a quick listen to the reviewers
favourite cd's.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
...
Audix wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:00:45 +0000, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet
wrote:
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.



Probably the best way to sort out the wheat from the chaff, not an option
available to most of course.

Most recordings are not made with all players present in a single
acoustic, and so a real A/B is not usually possible.

All studio trainees get this opportunity for recordings made straight
stereo. It's enormously useful and a very interesting experience to
sit out in the studio below and slightly back from the main pair and
just listen. When the take is completed you can go back to the
control room and hear the same performance from the monitors.

Few people get the opportunity these days, except at concerts,
to hear musical instruments "in the flesh" as it were, and are
sometimes quite surprised when they do.

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"exalted wombat" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes. The reed is a bit spitty. Put it down to
embouchure, a soft reed and my efforts
at subtone. I'm not a pro saxophone player.

The .wav file is considerably cleaner, so conversion
to -mp3 may have made the artefact more
noticeable.

Did you prefer the "natural" or "EQ'd mix" ?

Iain

Is this too mellow?
 

"Audix" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:01:02 +0000, Keith G
wrote:

Anyway, here's the original again:

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


And here's Arny's suggestion (EQ is not *my* work):

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


So, it's a simple case of 'better or worse?'...??

What does the team think?


The original is definitely not mellow. The composite nature is
revealed however. Clarinet sounds roughly as one would expect but the
saxophone is rather too breathy (on axis?) for my taste.

My saxophone idol is Ben Webster:-(
His tone is *much* breathier"

This latter
may be due to microphone positioning or the characteristic of the mic
itself, with which I'm unfamiliar.

The C1000s is a bit on the bright side. Instead of just using EQ
to flatten it out, I was interested to see what I could do with
positioning. Many people record the tenor saxophone by
just placing the mic above the bell. This is not the best option
as the higher notes come out from their repective sound holes
further up the "tube"

I placed one of the AKG pair above the G# key, and the
other closer to the bell - distance about 30cms.

The piece comes over as being put
together, rather than existing in a natural acoustic setting.

Oh it's a composite alright - recorded in three different
countries, and played by people who have never met each
other.

The EQ'd version sounds awful to me. Excessive HF lift to the point
that it becomes annoying - completely destroys the musical
cohesiveness and tonality of the piece.



We all hear things differently, so my comments are purely personal
observations.

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.

Thanks for your feedback. We have been talking on this group
about making a shared project recording for may years, and now
in a very simple form, we have done it.


Regards
Iain.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:54:50 +0200, "Iain Churches"
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.

Yes. The reed is a bit spitty. Put it down to
embouchure, a soft reed and my efforts
at subtone. I'm not a pro saxophone player.

The .wav file is considerably cleaner, so conversion
to -mp3 may have made the artefact more
noticeable.

Did you prefer the "natural" or "EQ'd mix" ?

I like the reduced mid-range tubbiness of the EQd mix, but not the
screechy top end.