On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Julien Claassen wrote: > Ive got a few questions/assumpotions, i'd like to have your opinion about. > Clarification: I don't use GUI, because I can't. I have to go by ear. > Equalisation; Assume using Fons Adriaesen's LADSPA EQ (filters.so Unique ID: > 1970). I choose the band freuqencies (as a starting point) around the > dominanat note of my piece. So if it's in A major/minor I might choose 55Hz, > 220Hz, 440Hz and 3520Hz. Assume we have a simple piece in one key only and we > don't do too much weird. Good assumption? Or should I start out by listening > for the main frequencies of instruments with harsh and loud attacks (like > drums, strongly plucked instruments...)? > Doing compression on filtered bands: I again go for bass, mid (rhtym > instrument and perhaps main voice) and high (lead sounds and all the > overtones). Again I choose based on the key of the piece. Good choice? I don't think the key of the music should have any influence on EQ, exectp maybe in very very specific cases. >... There are limits to what can be done in mastering, unless you accept to completey modify (usually mutilate) what has been done in mixing. The mastering step in commercial music production exists for three reasons: 1. Some people believe that pressing out the last half dB does provide an advantage in the context of airplay on commercial radio, no matter what it otherwise does to the quality of the sound. A mastering step separate from mixing allows record label executives to have things their way at that time without the artist looking over their shoulders. 2. To adapt a recording to the limits of the distribution medium. In vinyl disk times this was essential. It still has some significance today, but much less. 3. To ensure some uniformity in levels and sound between traks of an album. For someone producing his own music that will be distributed on digital media only (3) remains, maybe together with some fast limiting (using a look-ahead limiter) to remove short peaks and raise the average level without essentially modifying the sound. Everything else should have been done during recording or mixing. In particular things like filtering out unwanted LF (from mics) or HF (from electronics) noise are best done during recording. With the exception of close-miked drums, most instruments will need little EQ - if something extreme is required this almost allways indicates a problem elsewhere. This does not mean you should avoid EQ for some 'purity' reasons - this is nonsense. It also assumes instruments are supposed to remain 'themselves' and will be mixed more or less to their natural levels. If you are blending instruments (playing the same parts) to new new sounds, or building up a very dense mix in which individual instruments more ore less disappear into the soup then things are different, and 'anything goes'. The 'problem elsewhere' need not even be technical, it could be musical such as a part being played in a register that doesn't fit in with the rest - changing the instrument or transposing an octave up or down could solve it. How much compression is required depends very much on the type of music and sound - something supposed to sound natural will require very little compression but probably benefit more from overal peak limiting. When using compression, keep in mind *why* you use it: just to get a more constant or manangable level, or to modify the sound - a heavily compressed piano for example is almost a different instrument. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
