> Choosing the right filter kinds, controlling phase issues and loudness > (short an long term, for when the materials are played on a potent stereo > system) control, and preserving the intended feel of the recording are also > important, and is where A grade recordings/records can teach us a lot. I am > also a fan of being as neutral as possible, as in the more High Fidelity, > the nicer, and I go pretty far with that, also spec-wise. Natural > amplification with as little as possible distortion, sampling errors, and > built-in limitations (like "tuned" 2-way systems, which often is produced > form without people noticing) has the advantage to be able to listen to a > track or mix "as it is".
I think our goals part ways here. When listening to audio books via my laptop speaker I'm not at all interested in "neutrality" or fidelity. I just want the "text" conveniently delivered to the language processing part of my brain. Substrate independence if you will. My goal is to spend a minimum amount of energy on concentrating to pick up what the narrator says. I don't need dynamics. For instance, I prefer a compressed and amplified version of whispered speech (I have done listening tests) to barely audible but "neutrally" rendered speech. cheers, On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Theo Verelst <theo...@theover.org> wrote: > Emanuel Landeholm wrote: > >> Continuing off topic... >> >> On "correction"; it's an interesting philosophical concept. I listen to >> lots of audio books, and the program material comes with all kinds of >> problems.... >> > > Of course that's an ancient problem. Tube tape recorders with crystal > microphones already had those types of problems, and of course it depends > on how and where you're listening, and how well certain processing can work > on the amps and speakers you happen to be using. Like it is certainly > possible to limit, pretty easy to give a little straight amplification (if > the player you use allows it), and, well equalizers and "tone controls" > have been around for a long time ! So why not some digital versions of > those, that shouldn't be a problem. > > Choosing the right filter kinds, controlling phase issues and loudness > (short an long term, for when the materials are played on a potent stereo > system) control, and preserving the intended feel of the recording are also > important, and is where A grade recordings/records can teach us a lot. I am > also a fan of being as neutral as possible, as in the more High Fidelity, > the nicer, and I go pretty far with that, also spec-wise. Natural > amplification with as little as possible distortion, sampling errors, and > built-in limitations (like "tuned" 2-way systems, which often is produced > form without people noticing) has the advantage to be able to listen to a > track or mix "as it is". > > If neutrality also persists over a large dynamic range (which is the case > with my monitoring), it is possible the check out the Loudness Curve > sensitivities in well made tracks/mixes: at low volume it should sound > normal, and at loud volume the ratios of mid to high and low don't suddenly > sound like, euhm, "new" recordings.. > > Of course you can say "my monitors are norm" without every checking them > out with accurate test signals or measurement- and studio- microphones, > well fine, but chances are you're not going to get a lot of audio tasks > done if you're not honest with your monitoring. It could be you're going to > produce pathetic pieces of test music which sound divine to you, but not to > others. > > And most of all, as soon as you alter mixes, you're responsible for your > listeners or even clients, down the line: are the demands for hearing > damage warnings still properly active in the tracks you process, is the > maker of the artwork on you tracks still satisfied when you have processed > their materials, and they are put on CD or the radio? > > I have meant to repair materials, back to the state of the original > masters, with the proper Dolby settings on the tape they were made on. > > Sometimes, I play with the A-grade studio ticks I know thus far, which add > two main things: a dimension (a "length") to parts of the sound, which has > as effect that the "shears" along walls and so on are well behaved (as > compared to say a Zoom H3 recording of the news-reader), and the second > thing is a by-product of a FFT-equalization, applied in dynamic sense which > adds Loudness insensitivity to the material, making a track work better at > lower and higher volumes. > > If a track or mix is good (again..) I find it fun to play with pro studio > effects (of old) like Lexicon to see how well artificial reverberation or > other methods to create a nice full sound with hold up when the track or > mix is send through it, such as the ABBA example. So then of course on a > system which doesn't choke on the first warmth, and doesn't kill all > spatial information into dog food, it is fun game to listen to, and a good > (and difficult) signal test. By product of the Lexicon effect unit > responding well to a production is that usually it will as a consequence > also work good on a live amplification system (a decent PA I mean not some > piece of plastic on a wobbly pole). > > T. > > > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, > dsp links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
