On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:04:44 -0700 Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc(a)cosgroves.us> wrote: Indeed, I failed to note he said EQ, I went running with the sidechain compression article since it was still fresh in my mind from having read it again recently. -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM, J. Liles <malnourite(a)gmail.com> wrote: BTW upon further review, I think the Multiband EQ from SWH LADSPA plugin suite is linear phase--you'd only have to watch out for the latency it introduces (which wouldn't be a problem if you used an instance each for M and S).

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:29:45AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: MS is not a 'fashion mixing technique'. It's a rather fundamental way to represent a stereo signal, and one that has some unique advantages. Of course, like everything else, you can make a mess of it if you really want. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Ralf Mardorf wrote: For all the appreciated criticisms of M/S EQ, I'm really just starting to learn about mastering, so I'm trying lots of things. Up until lately, my mixes have been simple enough that it hasn't been that difficult to get them to translate across different speaker systems, but lately, I have been creating some very complicated mixes that are offering me an opportunity to expand my mastering knowledge. So I'm experimenting...and learning a lot of things that are new to me. One of the things I've been disovering is that actually, the EQ that sounds right to me doesn't seem to be the problem. I've found that there are commercial mixes out there that are both colder than mine, and some from the 70's that are warmer than mine, and they all translate somehow. So EQ curve is probably not the problem either way. It seems more related to compression and limiting -- my newer mixes have lots of transients all over the place, which sound great on speakers that render them well. But some stereos seem to have woofers/subwoofers that only get engaged when there's a fair amount of power, which means that if you don't turn the volume up, it creates the impression that the EQ is mostly high mids and treble. If you turn up the volume, the "problem" disappears as the woofers begin to engage. Commercially recorded music doesn't do this on the same stereo. On other speaker systems, my mix never manifests a problem at any volume setting. This all seems to be about dynamics. I am already using some compression and limiting, but obviously I haven't nailed it yet. I'm wondering if the Calf multiband limiter and/or multiband compressor may be useful here. Obviously, I don't want to squash the life out of my mix, but I do want to get its transients tamed enough that they'll survive playback across lots of kinds of speakers. -- + Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys + Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will + University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of + James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, + Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky

On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 00:30 -0700, J. Liles wrote: +1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Regarding to the other information I disagree, not completely, but a little bit. If possible avoid compression for individual tracks (sometimes it makes sense to use compression for individual tracks), but learn to use EQs instead and then add a decent compression to the stereo sum.

On 09/11/2013 05:54 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Somewhere ages ago I read that it only takes 1/10th of a watt to produce audible sound ... -- David gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com http://clanjones.org/david/ http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/

On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 13:26 -0500, Brent Busby wrote: "multiband" does indicate an EQ task ;). A multiband compressor is a good tool, but it can't harm to learn how to mix without using a compressor, before making the fine tuning by using a compressor. Maybe you only need fine tuning, I don't know. Keep in mind that if you compare a home recording with a good professional recording, likely your microphones miss to record something, that only can be recorded by using very good microphones, or virtual instruments don't provide what vintage organs, vintage synth etc. do provide, etc.. What reverbs do you use etc., pp.. I never heard any mix, professional or home recording, that did sound good on every hifi equipment. This is impossible.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Sorry about my poor terminology. You can probably intuit what I meant though (hopefully). Actually what I'm suspecting here is that this particular stereo's dynamic response *isn't* linear, at least not in regard to bass. It seems to almost act as though the bass is reacting with more dynamic range than what is actually there, at least with reference to other playback systems. Sorry if that's totally wrong, but that's just what I think I'm seeing. -- + Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys + Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will + University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of + James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, + Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky

On 09/11/2013 04:06 PM, Brent Busby wrote: Then I would suggest you listen on a more linear playback system. How your mix translates in a crappy system should be of no interest to you.

On 09/11/2013 05:06 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Or it could just mean the system sucks. I mix on SLS S8Rs (and Genelec 1031s) in a decent room, and my mixes translate. It simply is not possible to get your mix to translate on every system. To worry about making it translate on every system is an exercise in futility.

On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 21:06 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote: True https://www.google.de/search?q=auratone&client=firefox-a&hs=Clt&… However, modern crappy 200 W and more hifi equipment often only works when the music is insane loud, at sane levels the speakers and what ever else in the sound chain, are more biased, than at blast level. I had a neighbour who is young, with a modern hifi, who listened to black eyed peas or other crap that does sound as criminal as they do. The generation "I even listen to my music, when using the local public transport, at full power, by my smart phone speaker" owns gear that perhaps doesn't fulfill what should be expected for "HiFi" equipment.

On 09/12/2013 11:14 PM, Bob van der Poel wrote: My sentiments exactly!!!!! -- --- My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures: http://www.lateralforce.com Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch; und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.' - [Friedrich Nietzsche]

On 09/12/2013 08:36 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Well, I'm kinda happy they didn't evolve the ability to levitate and breath air, or shoot laser beams from their mouths. But just think of the soundscapes a technological dolphin could come up with! -- David gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com http://clanjones.org/david/ http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/

On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 09:42 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: I'm not kidding about the musicians. It seems to be a cultural issue, even to brew tea is done in a ridiculous way by some Japanese people, might be good regarding to meditation or what ever, but it often is far away from being music or e.g. a useful way to brew a tea.

A bit off-topic, but if I never have to use a crackly lo-fi landline again I'll be quite happy. I haven't had a phone plugged in to mine for several years, and the only reason I still have a copper pair running to the house is that it's the only way to get broadband out here. I don't believe I actually have a landline phone to plug into it any more. In a month or so when I change phone contracts I'm going to stick a 3G router up on the mast and ditch ADSL and the expensive crappy landline altogether. -- Gordonjcp MM0YEQ

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:11:04PM -1000, david wrote: I use a lot of four-wire landlines at work, which are considerably "flatter" than normal phone circuits. You can order bare copper with flat response to about 10kHz which used to be used for broadcast links apparently. The new AOD stuff is more reliable (and can be switched like telephone calls, unlike hardwired links) but is restricted to "telephone bandwidth" by the digital codecs used. They're still hellish expensive though, at roughly eight grand per year per link ;-) -- Gordonjcp MM0YEQ

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:54:55 +0000 Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote: Came to be the old radio geezer posting about the landlines for remote broadcasts, see I'm beaten to the punch. Jump ahead to my days of owning an ISP, and finding out that we could install DSL modems on bare copper lines (aka alarm circuits), which were really, really cheap - until the telco caught on and stopped providing us with those circuits, which was probably illegal, but when does that ever stop big corporations?? We then started provisioning ISDN circuits over Centrex, which eliminated the prohibitively high cost per minute charges(*) since the customer was considered a remote extension, and we paid by the mile away from one of our locations. It turned out that the telco (NYNEX, at the time) only had one technician, Jose, that had any idea how these circuits were to be installed. Unless he'd installed it, we knew the circuit wouldn't work until such time that Jose could be dispatched. We joked that NYNEX thought ISDN stood for "I Still Don't kNow". (*) We had one customer insist that they'd pay less money by going with an on-demand ISDN line that only connected when there was traffic, and would pay by the minute. They flipped when they got their first bill, as it was huge, They screamed at us until I proved that the traffic was caused by a Windows server that they had which would send some packets back to the Microsoft mothership every 5 or 10 minutes. They changed over to the dedicated line after that. -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

On 15/09/13 18:15, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: that's about what we paid in 1980 for such a link between to radio studios only a few kilometres apart ... that gave a high quality, tested, stereo link that was always ours, not shared in any way. Other landlines always varied a lot depending on there age and condition, but in terms of voice calls unless you had some old or long connection or something they were a lot clearer and more reliable than cellphones are here now. Simon