26 Sep
2010
26 Sep
'10
2:37 a.m.
On Sat, September 25, 2010 5:22 pm, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:44:33PM -0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
As said, there are two issues with the EQ. The first is that the
implementation is subobtimal and introduces artefacts that have
to be (and are to some extent) hidden by changes added after the
initial release. The second is that this type of filtering allows
and invites to do things that do indeed 'destroy' the sound from
a purist POV, while adding nothing useful from any other POV.
How much this matter depends on what other cruelties the signal
has been subjected to before :-)
I think this gets to the core of why there are so few "mastering" tools
for Linux. In general we already have the tools required to achieve the
goals of high quality audio.
Jamin is more of an exercise in pulling together a specific workflow that
some people have found works for them in their business requirements.
As a tool for people who just want to get something out the door and
minimise the effort required to create truely high quality audio it is
useful. For the purists there is probably no tool that can make pure audio
captured at 48khz sound better than a simple eq and a good amp/speaker
combo.
One thing I have noticed about the music that is produced by Linux
Musicians is that the majority of it is not radio friendly. Most of it is
not even attempting to be radio friendly. I think that says more about the
people producing than the tools they are using.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
Hence jamin is already designed to minimise the
negative effects on the
signal flow that are caused by the toolchain.
To some extent, yes. But it's a kludge, and a solution to a
problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
The
proper way to implement a filter of this type (with a FR
defined at all multiples of Fsamp / 1024) would be by using
linear convolution rather than cyclic. But as said, this is
not the right kind of filter anyway.
So what you are saying is that the whole design is sub optimal? Can you
clarify this in terms of every genre of professionally oriented music or
is it more of an audiophile type of concern? Like preferring Bugatti to
Toyota? Jamin was defined from the start as one way of
handling the mastering
process. Not necessarily the best or suited to every type of recording.
It
integrates the tools for that method into a single interface.
Gold/Platinum radio friendly rock/metal albums have been produced using
that method by the main "professional" contributors.
It's interesting to review the whole issue of mastering. Why does it
exist at all ? There is a mix of reasons for this.
1. To take technical limits of the distribution format into account.
2. To compete in the global 'loudness wars'.
3. To give the suits the last word.
4. To assemble a set of recorings into a coherent whole.
(1) was certainly an issue in the analog days. Today this matters
only for broadcasting, but radio stations are taking care of this
anyway - at least those that are constrained by commercial factors
to be 'louder than the competion'.
(2) still exists, but it if matters you can have better results
by taking care of this while mixing. Or just turning up the volume
while listening.
(3) still exists, but given that production and mixing techniques
have become much more sophisticated, the possibilities for changing
things in any major ways afterwards have in practice decreased.
(4) still valid.
Given all this, one can start thinking of what would be required from
a mastering application.
* Equalisation. Certainly. One advantage of having a separate mastering
step is that it provides a second set of speakers, a second set of ears,
and a second 'informed opinion'. But whatever is done in the way of EQ
will have to be gentle and require rather smooth frequency response
curves.
It's a matter of adding a bit of 'clarity' or 'body', or
'punch'. None
of this is done by agressive EQ. It's a few dB on rather broad frequency
ranges.
* Multi-band compression. Maybe. But if that improves the result, it's
much easier to apply compression while mixing, on selected tracks. The
'multi-band' thing is there only to try and separate things again, and
usually it fails. IMHO dynamics are part of the mixing step, no excuses.
* Peak limiting to allow higher average level. No discussion here. Any
signal, even purist classical recordings, can benefit from this without
being degraded in any significant way -- if done correctly. But you can't
do this using a general-purpose compression plugin. This really requires
ad-hoc algorithms to do it well.