Re: [LAU] Subject: Albums under a label recorded and/or mixed with Linux

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-09-26 02:22:21 +0200:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:44:33PM -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> 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 :-)
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA

What's an ad-hoc algorithm? Why are general purpose audio
compressors/limiters insufficient?

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Sep 26 12:15:03 2010