Re: [Csnd] Mastering

Date	2011-08-11 16:26
From	"Partev Barr Sarkissian"
Subject	Re: [Csnd] Mastering
	Dial back the high cut-off on that particular source device. When I would get aliasing on my sampler, I would band limit it and EQ the remainder of it to bring out the clarity and quality I wanted without it sound too mid-range nasal or low freq muddy. It's a bit of a balancing act, you're juggling while balancing a bike on a tightrope. Mastering is part art, part science and all listening. Having Genelec speakers is a good start. Try to keep it in the the 20kHz or lower range. A higher roll-off filter that doesn't have emphasis prior to cut-off might help. -Partev ======================================================================== --- peimankhosravi@gmail.com wrote: From: peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:41:05 +0100 On 11 August 2011 04:29, Partev Barr Sarkissian <encino_man@netscape.com> wrote: --Low Frequency low-off at bewtween 50->72Hz, because you usually don't need anything below 50Hz. Otherwise you get too much rumble and sonic mud. Yes this is good advice. Some pure low frequencies also seem to give trouble when converted to mp4 for DVD (if you are doing audiovisual work). --Find the spot where it aliases, then dial it back and limit the highest highs to keep any aliasing and out-of-band noise from creeping in. Partev, this is interesting. Some super high frequencies at 96k gave me trouble in a concert last year. I was doing some spectral shifting and as a result there was a lot of high frequency (above 20kHz) energy that wasn't audible and did not make any difference on my speakers (Genelec 8050). However playing the piece at the concert at one point I got some freaky glitches. I had to come back to the mix and eliminate all the super high frequencies from that one sound and all was well. I never really understood what was the problem, and I couldn't hearing it on any other speakers (there was no digital distortion either). What you are saying seems interesting, but I would have though that if materials are already aliased then there is nothing to be done about them right? Thanks Peiman --Compression,... yeah what the others have said. DO NOT COMPRESS AN ENTIRE MIX, it sounds really funky,.... unless that's the effect you're going for. And I certainly hope you're not. Compress individual elements, IF and ONLY IF YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. Don't compress too much it will alter you frequency spectrum. You compress a signal, you compress the whole frequency range of that signal. Unless you have a plug-in with multiband compression. My Digital Performer-4 has that, frequency band selective compression. Compressing more than -2dB, you risk "pumping" and "breathing" artifacts, so use it sparingly. --Limiter,.... similar problem, don't limit more than a dB or two, or you get "pumping and breathing" effects that are more amplitude related and less frequency related. Over limiting sounds bad. Use it sparingly. --Reverb,.... with individual elemnts, use small room short time verbing. For overall mix/mastering, just a smidgion of large space verbing. You CAN NOT PUT A LARGE ROOM INTO A SMALL ROOM, it won't work in 3-dimensional space, it won't work in virtual space either. --EQ,.... EQ individual elements to their ranges, give them their place in space and frequency. Then do an overal mix/master EQ, it will make more sense to the ear from a spatial and spectral point of view. Sorry for any shout CAPS, I'd use bold or italics, but this email composition window has some limitations beyond plain generic fonts. cheers, -partev ================================================================== --- khirai@ongaku.isa-geek.net wrote: From: kelly hirai <khirai@ongaku.isa-geek.net> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:01:02 -0400 (EDT) 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 <gothmagog@yahoo.com> 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 <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> > 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 <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> 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 <http://www.acousrama.net> : site web > L'espace acoustique <http://www.spatialismemusical.blogspot.com> : Les > approches > danse acousmatique <https://sites.google.com/site/danseacousmatique/> : > esthétique > Les mamelons de Vénus <https://sites.google.com/site/lesmamelonsdevenus/> : > 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" _____________________________________________________________ Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 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" Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

Date	2011-08-11 23:27
From	Drweski nicolas
Subject	Re : [Csnd] Mastering
	Thanks a lot. Btw, I found this page (french and english) with concrete audio examples. http://cec.sonus.ca/econtact/9_3/probleme3_e.html#7 N. Drweski De : Partev Barr Sarkissian <encino_man@netscape.com> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 17h26 Objet : Re: [Csnd] Mastering Dial back the high cut-off on that particular source device. When I would get aliasing on my sampler, I would band limit it and EQ the remainder of it to bring out the clarity and quality I wanted without it sound too mid-range nasal or low freq muddy. It's a bit of a balancing act, you're juggling while balancing a bike on a tightrope. Mastering is part art, part science and all listening. Having Genelec speakers is a good start. Try to keep it in the the 20kHz or lower range. A higher roll-off filter that doesn't have emphasis prior to cut-off might help. -Partev ======================================================================== --- peimankhosravi@gmail.com wrote: From: peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:41:05 +0100 On 11 August 2011 04:29, Partev Barr Sarkissian <encino_man@netscape.com> wrote: --Low Frequency low-off at bewtween 50->72Hz, because you usually don't need anything below 50Hz. Otherwise you get too much rumble and sonic mud. Yes this is good advice. Some pure low frequencies also seem to give trouble when converted to mp4 for DVD (if you are doing audiovisual work). --Find the spot where it aliases, then dial it back and limit the highest highs to keep any aliasing and out-of-band noise from creeping in. Partev, this is interesting. Some super high frequencies at 96k gave me trouble in a concert last year. I was doing some spectral shifting and as a result there was a lot of high frequency (above 20kHz) energy that wasn't audible and did not make any difference on my speakers (Genelec 8050). However playing the piece at the concert at one point I got some freaky glitches. I had to come back to the mix and eliminate all the super high frequencies from that one sound and all was well. I never really understood what was the problem, and I couldn't hearing it on any other speakers (there was no digital distortion either). What you are saying seems interesting, but I would have though that if materials are already aliased then there is nothing to be done about them right? Thanks Peiman --Compression,... yeah what the others have said. DO NOT COMPRESS AN ENTIRE MIX, it sounds really funky,.... unless that's the effect you're going for. And I certainly hope you're not. Compress individual elements, IF and ONLY IF YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. Don't compress too much it will alter you frequency spectrum. You compress a signal, you compress the whole frequency range of that signal. Unless you have a plug-in with multiband compression. My Digital Performer-4 has that, frequency band selective compression. Compressing more than -2dB, you risk "pumping" and "breathing" artifacts, so use it sparingly. --Limiter,.... similar problem, don't limit more than a dB or two, or you get "pumping and breathing" effects that are more amplitude related and less frequency related. Over limiting sounds bad. Use it sparingly. --Reverb,.... with individual elemnts, use small room short time verbing. For overall mix/mastering, just a smidgion of large space verbing. You CAN NOT PUT A LARGE ROOM INTO A SMALL ROOM, it won't work in 3-dimensional space, it won't work in virtual space either. --EQ,.... EQ individual elements to their ranges, give them their place in space and frequency. Then do an overal mix/master EQ, it will make more sense to the ear from a spatial and spectral point of view. Sorry for any shout CAPS, I'd use bold or italics, but this email composition window has some limitations beyond plain generic fonts. cheers, -partev ================================================================== --- khirai@ongaku.isa-geek.net wrote: From: kelly hirai <khirai@ongaku.isa-geek.net> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:01:02 -0400 (EDT) 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 <gothmagog@yahoo.com> 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 <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> > 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 <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> 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 <http://www.acousrama.net> : site web > L'espace acoustique <http://www.spatialismemusical.blogspot.com> : Les > approches > danse acousmatique <https://sites.google.com/site/danseacousmatique/> : > esthétique > Les mamelons de Vénus <https://sites.google.com/site/lesmamelonsdevenus/> : > 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" _____________________________________________________________ Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 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" Netscape. Just the Net You Need.