14 Feb
2013
14 Feb
'13
4:03 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Brendan Jones
<brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I listened to yours as well, and I'd say it is the
cleaner of the three,
however it still does exhibit the same problems as the original (namely the
highs need to be boosted)
While I am not really out to defend or otherwise what I did in 15 minutes,
I will say two things on this. This does come down to personal preference
to an extent, while I obviously boosted the highs, and I thought Fon's was
an improvement, I also thought that Fon's highs were a bit too harsh from
being boosted so much personally. As I said, a lot comes down to personal
opinion and for something that was done in a relatively short timespan, for
I am certain all of us, there is a lot of subjectiveness going on:)
The other thing I will say is that part of why I chose not to boost the
highs any stronger is there is already evidence of something undesired
going on in that section I needed to track down, and boosting them farther
just brought that out more. This is not the same thing that led to what I
believe to be the harshness in Fon's version, most likely this is related
to a phase problem introduced by the amount of EQ used or specific EQs I
did use as I used several different filters (Ranging from Harrison, to
Glame, to LinuxDSP), or it is possible it is artifacts from the multiband
gating I used to clean up the hiss, or possibly one of those accentuated by
the other. The end result is that with that going on I felt it better not
to boost any more;)
All that being said I do like several things about Fon's and was tempted to
just see how it sounded if I merely cleaned it up a bit. But decided not
to in my case for a variety of reasons:)
Seablade