linuxaudio.org

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-09-26 02:22:21 +0200:

quoted text
> 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@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user