playback environment is a major consideration. live shows would mix a 
heavely compressed and bandwidth limited mix for broadcast because back in 
the day, tv sound was through a 3" paper speaker. sometimes i'd be 
listening to SNL's musical guest and half the band would be mixed out to 
keep it uncluttered. everything super dry except for the soloists.

you would take your cd masters around to boom boxes, cars and various home 
hifi situations to get some perspective on how you mix was going to be 
heard, how it would stand up to heavy eq'ing, distortion. not much 
reverb in a living room or car so you make your own space. this is what i 
think of when i think of mastering.

that said, and on the topic of multi speaker sound environments, half of 
the speakers i have are in guitar amps. i have a multi channel card, i 
should try a tape composition for pa and backline he he. jumping aroud 
stage stomping on stomp boxes... he he! ooh, gears are a 
turning.

k.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, peiman khosravi wrote:

> Hi Michael,

My response follows below.

On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:

> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to
> evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb sounds
> good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the problem?
> Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert halls
> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>
> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the
same as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on
another environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear
it as reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to
create spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of
sounds as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as
spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of
listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually
experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in (use
it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily
end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to avoid
this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the perception
of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick
(same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts your
listening focus.

The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop
music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural
artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use
reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear
reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is
altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the
composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner
that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with
obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'.
Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the composer's
intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and distracting
her from the sounds themselves.

In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant to
> be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>
> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in
concert electroacoustic music :-)

I'll shut up now!

Best,

Peiman

> Michael Bechard
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* peiman khosravi 
> *To:* csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>
> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push
> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>
> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way
> to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake [sounding!]
> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
> comment about your music at all).
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>
> Hi Csounders !
>
> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part, and
> I am asking me if I should :
> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of
> it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do
> on the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here
> that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
> Here are the extracts of the work :
>
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>
> *N*. *D*rweski
>
> acousrama  : site web
> L'espace acoustique  : Les
> approches
> danse acousmatique  :
> esthétique
> Les mamelons de Vénus  :
> instrument musical
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Great response Peiman. I completely agree with you about the compression.

My perspective is that mastering is a very personal choice, as much as 
any other compositional decision, and is very dependent upon the piece, 
the intended mode of playback and the venue. I usually make two stereo 
mixes of my 8.1 pieces. One is "wetter", which I use for CDs. They are 
meant to be heard in headphones and on home stereo systems. I usually 
make my mp3s from that mix. Then I make a dryer, little or no effects, 
mix for stereo playback in the concert hall or other large rooms. The 
room should add what is needed there if it is a good room. My 8 channel 
mixes are completely dry because they will only be heard in the concert 
hall.

Assuming your are doing your final mixing in a DAW... if the vocal is 
"thin" sounding there are many ways to make it have more body in a mix. 
Sometimes doubling it on to two tracks and then put one track just a few 
ms out of sync with the other works wonders. Other times a bit of reverb 
will give it some needed color. If the dynamic range is very wide to 
begin with some subtle compression can allow you to bring up the overall 
amplitude and make things a bit more within a useable range.

So my 2 cents worth would be to listen to your piece very carefully and 
try different things until you find the combination that works for your 
sensibilities. If you use a plugin, which is always my preference at the 
mixing stage, then use good ones... The Waves plugins are excellent but 
quite costly...

Good luck!!

Michael Rhoades

http://www.perceptionfactory.com
http://www.rhoadesfineart.com




On 8/10/11 2:34 PM, peiman khosravi wrote:
> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual 
> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics 
> in your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' 
> your dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section 
> and push them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>
> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap 
> way to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their 
> own spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake 
> [sounding!] room acoustics . If they do then there is something 
> missing in the mix in the first place (I have not listened to your 
> tracks so I am not making a comment about your music at all).
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  > wrote:
>
>     Hi Csounders !
>
>     I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final
>     part, and I am asking me if I should :
>     1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a
>     compressor)
>     2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a
>     mastering of it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
>     I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be
>     good to do on the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or
>     both ? Does anyone here that, composing an ensemble of
>     electroacoustic pieces, are making a mastering (equalisation,
>     compression, reverb), as it will be.
>     Here are the extracts of the work :
>
>     http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
>     http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
>     http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
>     http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>     *N*. *D*rweski
>
>     acousrama  : site web
>     L'espace acoustique  :
>     Les approches
>     danse acousmatique
>      : esthétique
>     Les mamelons de Vénus
>      : instrument
>     musical
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I tend to agree with Peiman.

I think the best approach to "mastering" computer music, or
electroacoustic music, is to listen frequently and critically to the
piece as a whole on really good monitor speakers in a very quiet
place. What the piece actually sounds like is after all the bottom
line.

I've often found that reverb helps my pieces, but I've just as often
found that when I listen as recommended above, I keep reducing the
reverb (which begins to sound treacly and annoying) until it is there
- but I can't actually hear it as reverb! It just makes the sounds
that I do hear, sound a little bit more "sweet." Of course that's not
always what a piece needs.

Regards,
Mike

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Michael Bechard  wrote:
> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to
> evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb sounds
> good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the problem?
> Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert halls
> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>
> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant to
> be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>
> Michael Bechard
>
> ________________________________
> From: peiman khosravi 
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>
> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push
> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>
> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way
> to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake [sounding!]
> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
> comment about your music at all).
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>
> Hi Csounders !
> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part, and
> I am asking me if I should :
> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of
> it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do on
> the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here
> that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
> Here are the extracts of the work :
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>
> N. Drweski
> acousrama : site web
> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
> danse acousmatique : esthétique
> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 08/08/11 14:24, peiman khosravi wrote:
> I don't want to preach the converted but just to go on about the quality
> of the PVS opcodes here is an example.
> 2- Cleaned up version (using Csound):
> http://idisk.mac.com/peimankh/Public/BirdOnlyFrance.aif

Amazing!  What code did you use to do this cleanup?
Did you have a separate sample of the background noise?

Cheers,
David



Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi David,

No actually it was much simpler than that. I filtered all the low
frequencies first. Then I used Kontrast from FFTools to keep only bins
that fall between low and high amplitude thresholds (with some
smoothing). The amplitude range was quite narrow actually and it just
isolated the bird. I then edited the file and kept only these parts.

You can access the code if you download FFTools (I think I sent a link
last week to the list but I can send it to you if you can't find it).

Best,

Peiman

On 18 August 2011 09:32, David Banks  wrote:
> On 08/08/11 14:24, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> I don't want to preach the converted but just to go on about the quality
>> of the PVS opcodes here is an example.
>> 2- Cleaned up version (using Csound):
>> http://idisk.mac.com/peimankh/Public/BirdOnlyFrance.aif
>
> Amazing!  What code did you use to do this cleanup?
> Did you have a separate sample of the background noise?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"