In message om, Rob
writes
On 12/02/2012 09:32, Jim Lesurf wrote:


FWIW The sox equalizer and bass settings I mentioned a while ago are my
first guess as to what might tame/improve the poorer EMI CD transfers. But
I've not yet experimented.


Does strike me as bizarre that such apparently cherished recordings
suffer at the point of conversion. I mean, how hard can it be?

Having said this, the Amazon reviews (only two) of your new medley
appear glowing:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mercury-Livi.../dp/B005XBA9Y8

I am wondering, and without wanting to bring on escalation, if the
transfer from analogue to digital is at least part of the reason some
people prefer LPs?

Rob


Nearly all the cd releases of old vinyl recordings that I have heard in
the past 15 years or so have had the so-called 're-mastering' applied.
This normally is little more than an excessive amount of level
compression, though I think that any compression applied to a good
quality original recording is unacceptable. Normalise to -1dbFS by all
means, but why all the compression? Loudness wars surely don't apply to
those who want a CD version of a favourite recording?
It's not the CD transfer that's the issue, it's foolish sound engineers
thinking that they know best.

I often use audacity to check recordings that seem to have compression
issues. The overall amplitude graph of the track concerned will soon
show if there is an issue. Is there not a similar program for those who
persist in using a bizarre platform such as a RISCos machine?
--
Chris Morriss

On 12/02/2012 17:43, Chris Morriss wrote:
In message om, Rob
writes
I am wondering, and without wanting to bring on escalation, if the transfer
from analogue to digital is at least part of the reason some people prefer LPs?

Nearly all the cd releases of old vinyl recordings that I have heard in the past
15 years or so have had the so-called 're-mastering' applied. This normally is
little more than an excessive amount of level compression, though I think that
any compression applied to a good quality original recording is unacceptable.

+1

Normalise to -1dbFS by all means, but why all the compression? Loudness wars
surely don't apply to those who want a CD version of a favourite recording?
It's not the CD transfer that's the issue, it's foolish sound engineers thinking
that they know best.

Thinking that they know best seems to be an inherent shortcoming of a lot of
contemporary sound people.

I often use audacity snip

A fantastic program that for free represents unbelievable value for [no] money.
Every windows user should have it on their machine.

Is there not a similar program for those who persist in using a bizarre platform such as a RISCos machine?

Nothing remotely as good as Audacity that I know of but anyone who knows of one
could provide a link.

In article ,
Chris Morriss wrote:
It's not the CD transfer that's the issue, it's foolish sound engineers
thinking that they know best.

More likely the marketing types who employ the mastering company. If the
studio sound engineer wanted this dreadful clipped and compressed noise
he's quite capable of doing so. ;-)

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Chris Morriss
wrote:

Nearly all the cd releases of old vinyl recordings that I have heard in
the past 15 years or so have had the so-called 're-mastering' applied.
This normally is little more than an excessive amount of level
compression, though I think that any compression applied to a good
quality original recording is unacceptable.

Yes, this seems to be common for 'pop' and 'rock' music. But is rare for
'classical' music, fortunately.

Normalise to -1dbFS by all means, but why all the compression? Loudness
wars surely don't apply to those who want a CD version of a favourite
recording? It's not the CD transfer that's the issue, it's foolish sound
engineers thinking that they know best.

I agree. Alas, many of the pop/rock re-issues clearly show that that those
doing 're-mastering' think they 'know' that 'louder sells'. Even though the
real evidence shows otherwise.

Contrast that, though, with the excellent BBC Music Mag cover discs. FWIW
I've now found that a few more of these are also 'Red Book' pre-emphasised.
So someone is going out of their way to try and maximise the effective
dynamic range for these. I suspect it may be Jennifer Howells who is
credited for the 'CD mastering', and I'd love to ask her, but don't have
any contact point.

I often use audacity to check recordings that seem to have compression
issues. The overall amplitude graph of the track concerned will soon
show if there is an issue. Is there not a similar program for those who
persist in using a bizarre platform such as a RISCos machine?

ahem Oddly enough, some chappie did a program for examing dynamics
some time ago...

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/software/index.html

You can find both RISC OS and Linux/ROX versions of a simple program that
analyses the stats of dynamics of a Wave file. The Linux version outputs
both CVS files of the results and lets you plot them using Veusz.

I've used the software for the results in various articles and webpages on
topics like clipping and compression of CD 're-releases'.

RISC OS tends not to be based on the idea that one app/program should
seek to do everything. Instead it is more Linux-like in people producing
smaller apps that can be easily made to co-operate or be chained or
adapted. And TBH most RO users also happily use other platforms as well,
chosing depending on what kind of task, and how they like to work. So
in my case I use my RISC OS machine for 'text and illustrations' sorts
of activity, but mainly use Linux for processing audio data, etc. A
screwdriver is not a hammer.

However my interest that prompted this thread was the question of spectral
response. So far as I have experienced, the classical re-issues by EMI,
aren't particularly level-compressed. That said, some Mercury CDs[1] are
over-loud and clipped. But that seems to be due to the gain being set too
high overall, rather than compression. I have the feeling that for the
Mercury recordings someone felt that 'impressively loud' was the
mass-market face of 'impressively hi-fi'. :-/

FWIW I listened last night to one of the Mercury Box CDs that as three
works by Prokofiev. Scythian Suite, Three Oranges, and 5th Symphony. The
first two sound superb to my ears. Rich sound with extended low LF.The last
has a distinctly 'closer and dryer' sound with relatively cut LF.

However the first two were played by the LSO in 'Great Britain' whereas the
last was two years later, played by the Minneapolis SO in 'USA'. So this
may say something about the differences in the acoustics of the Halls.
Annoyingly, the CD sleeve doesn't specify the halls.

I'll have a trawl on the web later, but does anyone know already of
somewhere that lists the recording venues, etc, of each Mercury recording?
This info isn't in the box set, which I find an unfortunate omission. Even
the EMI box of Steinberg's old recordings lists the recording venues, and
it is interesting to hear how much difference this seems to often make.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Obvious example being the '1812 Overture' recording that is promoted on
the basis of LOUD CANNON SHOTS... which are clipped on the CD. Thus
squashing the dynamics of the 'cannon shots'.

--
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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I'm hoping this might make a change from a mega-thread about "Audio
Precision" that is actually wandering all over the shop!... :-)

I've been experimenting with 'sox' to deemphasise audio CD data, and the
flexibility of sox set me wondering about using it to eq old EMI
recordings
that sometimes have an edgey quality to the strings, and lack low bass
because of their old fear of bass causing 'groove jumping'. Not
experimented yet, but wondered if anyone else has had a play with this.

In the trade, what you propose is sometimes called "mastering" if the
recording has not yet been released, and "remastering" if it has.

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.

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:21:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm hoping this might make a change from a mega-thread about "Audio
Precision" that is actually wandering all over the shop!... :-)

I've been experimenting with 'sox' to deemphasise audio CD data, and the
flexibility of sox set me wondering about using it to eq old EMI
recordings
that sometimes have an edgey quality to the strings, and lack low bass
because of their old fear of bass causing 'groove jumping'. Not
experimented yet, but wondered if anyone else has had a play with this.

Don't know what sox is, but yes, I've done this kind of thing before
with Audition. I found a useful way to get it right, which was to take
a spectrum of the same piece, but a recording I liked and compare it
with the spectrum of the deficient one. Audition lets you draw
filters, and it was an easy task to construct one that corrected the
deficiencies. I did find that it was a good idea not to try and
correct too much, though.

Sounds like descriptions I've read of Har-Bal. Does anyone have
experience with that program?

I'm absolutely shocked by this from you. Why would one need to use an
analytical tool to equalize a piece of music to sound good? Don't you have
ears?

"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).

There is no active channel of my primary tool, a Yamaha 02R96 that is set
for perfectly flat response. Not including the tails of end-of-band
roll-offs, some channels get the full +/- 18 dB capability of its 5-channel
parametric equalizers. I've been known to cascade equalizers in order to
increase range and sharpen response curves to deal with some particularly
tough situations.

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 11/02/2012 14:08, Don Pearce wrote:

My conclusions? If the problem isn't severe, go for it. But you won't
get any joy out of trying to fix something really nasty.

My conclusion is that you should get a Linsley Hood amp from the 1970s
and play with the switched frequency bass and treble controls,
and the switched frequency variable slope treble filter until you get
bored,
then put everything back to flat and just enjoy the music.


My conclusion is that you should step into the 1980s and start working with
full parametric equalizers with at least 4 channels. If you want to go
totally overboard on moving into the middle 1990s, then use a DAW.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:21:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm hoping this might make a change from a mega-thread about "Audio
Precision" that is actually wandering all over the shop!... :-)

I've been experimenting with 'sox' to deemphasise audio CD data, and the
flexibility of sox set me wondering about using it to eq old EMI
recordings
that sometimes have an edgey quality to the strings, and lack low bass
because of their old fear of bass causing 'groove jumping'. Not
experimented yet, but wondered if anyone else has had a play with this.

Don't know what sox is, but yes, I've done this kind of thing before
with Audition. I found a useful way to get it right, which was to take
a spectrum of the same piece, but a recording I liked and compare it
with the spectrum of the deficient one. Audition lets you draw
filters, and it was an easy task to construct one that corrected the
deficiencies. I did find that it was a good idea not to try and
correct too much, though.

Sounds like descriptions I've read of Har-Bal. Does anyone have
experience with that program?

I'm absolutely shocked by this from you. Why would one need to use an
analytical tool to equalize a piece of music to sound good? Don't you have
ears?

Thanks for responding! I was, of course, commenting on Don's practice,
so you may direct your question to him.

What's your experience with Har-Bal?

Stephen

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.

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.