In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
Compared to modern GUI tools, SOX's command line UI is pretty daunting
from an ease-of-use standpoint. Tools like Cooledit have been
publicly released and widely used for about 17 years.. If open source
floats your boat, Audacity would seem to be a massive step forward
from SOX, especially if you add one of the zillions of plug-in
equalizers.

Think the problem is Jim won't use anything that doesn't run on linux.

Well I think the 'problem' is misunderstanding what I have in mind. :-)

FWIW I think programs like Audacity work OK on Linux. And I think I have
experimented with it in the past. However my interest is in being able
initially to experiment, but then to have the ability to 'batch process'
files when needed with presets I have chosen. For both tasks sox works as
suits me. I guess I'm old fashioned in simply liking command line tools I
can write my own 'drag and drop' wrapper for. Hence get what I want rather
than what a GUI designer wants to impose on me.

But the start question was to see if others thought there was anything like
an 'EMI sound' *for the CDs they have released* in terms of the spectral
balance being different to the original LP releases. If there isn't, then
not much point in my proceeding. Just that I do often have the impression
that there is a fairly common sound difference for the recordings of the
era I have in mind.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

But it brings me back to my main question, which I've left unsnipped
above. I am wondering if others have already experimented and formed a
view wrt what kind of alteration may be systematically beneficial for
various classes of material?

Most of the work that you describe, namely equalizing audio feeds to
improve their listenability, is one of the canonical functions of live
sound mixers, of which I am one. I mix about 4 hours a week of live
performances with 120-300 people in the audience. I serve at another
2-4 hours of full-staff rehearsals per week. I generally work with
about 32 concurrent active sources, mostly microphones and electric
instruments on direct boxes, and with 2-4 channels of digital media
players (audio and video).

So - with my primary question in view - have you examined CD releases of
old EMI classical material that was originally released on LP back in the
days pre the 1980s? And did your impression agree with mine, that the
spectral balance tends to often be different from the LPs in a systematic
pattern? And that EMI classical also often tended to be low LF shy?

I'll add a new question to that for you and others, just in case, although
maybe not many people have the Box (as yet).

I have - on a fairly brief trial so far - had the feeling that the new
Mercury Box set actually is simply the same transfers as they released more
than a decade ago on individual CDs. This is good in not being level
compressed. But bad in that some CDs were transferred at too high a level,
so are distinctly clipped. And they seem to have made a 'bragging rights'
issue of having done no alterations at all - when perhaps in reality some
of the recordings would benefit from either tweaking the spectral response
or altering the center to left-right relative levels.

Note I'm not asking because I want to push a conclusion I have already
decided upon. But because I am not sure and wonder if anyone else has
explored the EMI issue and formed any views on it. From past experience,
trying to get useful feedback from the relevant companies is a waste of
time. They either ignore you or feed you PR fluff from people who have no
idea what was done, and may know nothing about the 'technical' side.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Compared to modern GUI tools, SOX's command line UI is pretty daunting
from an ease-of-use standpoint. Tools like Cooledit have been publicly
released and widely used for about 17 years.. If open source floats
your boat, Audacity would seem to be a massive step forward from SOX,
especially if you add one of the zillions of plug-in equalizers.

Think the problem is Jim won't use anything that doesn't run on linux.

I was under the impression that Audacity fit that bill.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:
Compared to modern GUI tools, SOX's command line UI is pretty daunting
from an ease-of-use standpoint. Tools like Cooledit have been
publicly released and widely used for about 17 years.. If open source
floats your boat, Audacity would seem to be a massive step forward
from SOX, especially if you add one of the zillions of plug-in
equalizers.

Think the problem is Jim won't use anything that doesn't run on linux.

Well I think the 'problem' is misunderstanding what I have in mind. :-)

FWIW I think programs like Audacity work OK on Linux. And I think I have
experimented with it in the past. However my interest is in being able
initially to experiment, but then to have the ability to 'batch process'
files when needed with presets I have chosen.

Remastering has generally been thought as being a per-album or per-track
operation.

But the start question was to see if others thought there was anything
like
an 'EMI sound' *for the CDs they have released* in terms of the spectral
balance being different to the original LP releases.

I can't speak for the recording processes used by every label, but in the
U.S. it was very clear to me as a listener that at least Motown, RCA and
Columbia had a "house sound" that they mastered their recordings to match.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:
Compared to modern GUI tools, SOX's command line UI is pretty
daunting from an ease-of-use standpoint. Tools like Cooledit have
been publicly released and widely used for about 17 years.. If open
source floats your boat, Audacity would seem to be a massive step
forward from SOX, especially if you add one of the zillions of
plug-in equalizers.

Think the problem is Jim won't use anything that doesn't run on linux.

Well I think the 'problem' is misunderstanding what I have in mind. :-)

FWIW I think programs like Audacity work OK on Linux. And I think I
have experimented with it in the past. However my interest is in being
able initially to experiment, but then to have the ability to 'batch
process' files when needed with presets I have chosen.

Remastering has generally been thought as being a per-album or per-track
operation.

The problem being to have those involved do this (or not!) in an
appropriate manner! :-)

FWIW Out of curiousity, last night I did a comparison of two versions of
the 'Mercury' 1812 Overture recording. One on the CD issue from the 1990s,
the other from the new box.

They aren't exactly identical if you just read the discs and compare them.
But they are if you offset one set of data by about 30 milliseconds. Then
the two CDs are identical, sample-for-sample.

This is a shame as it has been clear for years that the transfer from the
1990s is heavily clipped. So it looks like the record company neither know
nor care about this. Which does cast doubts on some of the other transfers
for the same reason.

But the start question was to see if others thought there was anything
like an 'EMI sound' *for the CDs they have released* in terms of the
spectral balance being different to the original LP releases.

I can't speak for the recording processes used by every label, but in
the U.S. it was very clear to me as a listener that at least Motown,
RCA and Columbia had a "house sound" that they mastered their
recordings to match.

I'd say that was also true for classical EMI, Decca, etc. However my
curiosity is the systematic difference I suspect often exists for EMI
recordings between old LP transfers and later CD transfers. And, if so,
what the reasons may be.

Alas, as with the Mercury example, it may just be because those involved
haven't actually compared or checked.

In some cases I can see why a 'flat transfer' with no attempts to tweak or
'improve' make sense. But in other cases some adjustment may well be
sensible. The difficulty is to have those doing the work always deal with
this well! :-/

Regardless of which, a lot of the Mercury box - and EMI recordings - are
very enjoyable. But it is unfortunate when problems mar them which could
have been avoided.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html