Peaky notes, EQ and compressor limitations, uncontrollable

[Tim_Lookingbill]

@steve

@Tim Lookingbill

What’s nice about Audacity’s High Pass filter is that it can start at 1Hz but is limited in decibel increments

Audacity’s high pass filter is not limited to decibel increments. If you want, say 3.1415926536 Hz, then just type it in.

However, do note that 1 dB is a pretty small increment. Amplitude changes that are less than 1 dB are difficult to hear - in fact, many people can’t discern differences of less than 1 dB.

Steve, sorry I didn’t mention I’m referring to Audacity v2.0.6 HPF which only provides a drop down menu with a minimum 6db to 12, 24, etc increments. But the roll off frequency of the old HPF version does go down to 1Hz and can increase in increments.

I tried to upgrade to the most recent Audacity version but it makes Apple AU effects interface so buggy I can’t use them plus the change in font style with bold & enlarged characters mucks up the layout of the overall interface. I now use Audacity mostly as an analytical tool and to check clipping and apply a better quality Limiter when needed.

My main point was that this low end frequency I find can’t be surgically removed with these filters without affecting the nuances of the rest of the mids and highs Ronald appears to be concerned about. So what a compressor appears to do from what I’m hearing is it blends the surrounding low bass frequencies into the rest of the overall bass sound as a way to not make this frequency so pronounced, kind of acting like a notch curve but more spread out.

I could be wrong and just hearing things but it took live editing within Garageband using these effects to convince me sound perception is quite different from editing short isolated preview sections.

[steve]

@Tim Lookingbill

I tried to upgrade to the most recent Audacity version

Are you sure? https://forum.audacityteam.org/t/audacity-2-1-3-released/45215/1

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

UPDATE: I at this point do not think I have a sub-bass problem. I think sloping down from songs mid point high, per plot, is sufficient cutting of the low-end. For me I have been using EQ to do this, adjusting until I get the ‘downhill’ slope/from mids (or rather from the valley between low and the mids). Example: drawing from 20 Hz (as low as you can go with Audacities EQ)/-36 dBs up to 80 Hz (the valley)/0 dBs to cut my usual low-end excess (with EQ filter set about middle).

When editing, the first major thing I do is cut the low-end down.

I now think my sound I don’t like is my mids, after considering the subs (low-end bass) problem tamed sufficiently/i.e., problem solved. —

Next (and next in my editing): [It seems] the trick is to get the mids down just right, which I now reedited previous mentioned version of song “WTF”, which after giving a little more EQ (cut) to the mids I now hate the sound less. So I’ll see — but I guess I get no answer on the 24 bit vs. 16 bit question, or did I answer it already myself?? — I’ll see on that too. ‘Trial and error I guess, trial and error’… .

“WTF/explicit” — NEW edit (edit C) #170318C31/is less punchy mids. Not as cleaned up as the previous version though (edit D coming soon I’m sure - or maybe not??). Or I may go back to building model ships in glass bottles? — Anyway, the cleaning of the clicks and pops is the most time consuming part of editing for me (!)… And for some reason I do not want to do that first and save a duplicate before I (go further) - into the edit - EQ, etc. and then close project only to want to redo it all again later — I always feel like, “this is it”, “this is the great edit” (‘no sense marking my trail with popcorn’).

Though I still question the ability to export a track (like initial pops and click fixes) and have the ability to re-import it later (in case of an emergency/a start over) without losing anything in the process (and what format would be best to do that in…)?

Ronald Newman

Thanks. Sorry if I missed anything - . Like the bus out of here.

“Phoenix Arizona - Where they put the ‘Gee!!’ in Geo-engineering”

UPDATE: I’ve switched sites around and at this time have a new mostly proprietary method of things (previous voided). If you like my new sound and want to know more about my editing techniques feel free to ask,

Ronald Newman
http://www.SoundCloud.com/BlackDogSongs

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

@steve

@Black Dog Bluez

I’ve never seen this — “zero at zero”

You will probably not see this in Plot Spectrum due to the relatively course frequency resolution at low frequencies.
To “see” zero energy at zero Hz, you need to think what “zero Hz” means. “Hz” (the “frequency”) is the rate at which the audio is changing. “Zero Hz” means “not changing”, or in other words “DC”.

So “zero energy at zero Hz” means that there is no DC offset.

Zero at zero (among many other things) is a mind boggling concept for me. Could it be at silence or quietness that this zero should be at zero, per frequency analysis? — Just to put this in some kind of perspective, or practical application anyway… . And I think I am limited by the Audacity Plot Spectrum, per utilizing this seemingly abstract concept anyway, right (?). Or maybe I need some cannabis sativa to wrap my head around this? - What ever this is. Thanks nonetheless.

Oh wait “no DC offset”, that’s all it means? Okay, if so, I’m good as far as that goes - I never have DC offset and can check with the wavestats plugin and I know how to fix – well I do get it with my Sansa Clip recorders, but not my Tascam DR05.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

@steve

@Tim Lookingbill

I tried to upgrade to the most recent Audacity version

Are you sure? https://forum.audacityteam.org/t/audacity-2-1-3-released/45215/1

OMG! You guys are seriously the best open source code warriors I’ve ever encountered!

Just downloaded and installed Audacity 2.1.3 for Mac OS and not only is the interface fonts fixed but I now get the full Apple GUI of their AU effects (see attached) that I get in Garageband, especially the Multiband Compressor. AND IT PLAYS LIVE WHILE I EDIT! OMG! THANK YOU ALL!

The plugin manager works flawlessly. All I had to do is enable the ones I had in 2.0.6 and they immediately appeared under the Effects menu. Didn’t have to restart Audacity.

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

Glad someone’s happy…

I just realized Audacity has a new version!! And - I was - on the email list - or so I thought–? Anyway so I up’ed to 13! Geez (shouldn’t you have went to 14 instead? Bypassing… 2.1.3 or 6 gematrically-- kidding/I think --yes/kidding – or 3.0??

Lo-Fi Resistance (Resistance against poor sounding lo-fi audio recordings!):

yes no yes no insane/ so I did this — better sound? Different approach. Did I invent audio editing all by myself? Yes. Thanks to Audacity (considering it is NOT designed to make me crazy – er/ well – fun anyway – like totally rad — Anyway I think this is better/may try some compression tonight?? (on my head) But don’t think I’ll record in 16 bit again — seems much harder to fix the pops/clicks-- (compared to 24 bit)

Ronald Newman “WTF /EXPLICIT” – EDIT F—!:

Same picture full size:

Big mid still but … (?). — Compression? Or this is just normal for this style of a song? I tried cutting/wavering (zigging?) the EQ curve, dipping down into the mid but it seemed to just take too much away or alter the original sound too much (?)… I don’t know, it’s like fragile and only a “butterworth” (?) type cut/curve can not upset the delicacy therein/too much (?). — I don’t know just a guess. I like the way that people that went to school for this stuff and KNOW’’ are strangely absent around here! (well, there’s a few - but not enough shared IMO) — Even retired music engineers strangely silent in these matters (Where are they? On Facebook posting cat videos?) — Calling the spirit of Sam Phillips … (?) Maybe I shouldn’t do that — look what happened to Elvis… .

UPDATE: I’ve switched sites around and at this time have a new mostly proprietary method of things (previous voided). If you like my new sound and want to know more about my editing techniques feel free to ask,

Ronald Newman
http://www.SoundCloud.com/BlackDogSongs

[steve]

@Black Dog Bluez

I was - on the email list - or so I thought–?

The email list for announcements were sent from our old SourceForge hosting provider. As the Audacity project is no longer hosted there, that email list has gone by the wayside. We are looking to make more use of social media, so if you follow Audacity on facebook, or Google Plus, or twitter, you can get notifications that way. Other than that, announcements are also made on the Audacity website, and this forum.

[steve]

@Black Dog Bluez

I like the way that people that went to school for this stuff and KNOW’’ are strangely absent around here! (well, there’s a few - but not enough shared IMO) — Even retired music engineers strangely silent in these matters (Where are they? On Facebook posting cat videos?)

It’s almost impossible to answer questions (if indeed it is a “question”) like this:

yes no yes no insane/ so I did this — better sound? Different approach. Did I invent audio editing all by myself? Yes. Thanks to Audacity (considering it is NOT designed to make me crazy – er/ well – fun anyway – like totally rad > > — Anyway I think this is better/may try some compression tonight?? (on my head) But don’t think I’ll record in 16 bit again — seems much harder to fix the pops/clicks-- (compared to 24 bit)

Ronald Newman “WTF /EXPLICIT” – EDIT F—!:
http://www.SoundClick.com/RonaldNewman

New_Curve_AUD_EQ_640x512.png
EQ curve applied to WTF edit F
New_Curve_AUD_EQ_640x512.png (123.37 KiB) Viewed 3 times



Same picture full size:

New_Curve_AUD_EQ.png
Same full size picture
New_Curve_AUD_EQ.png (132.73 KiB) Viewed 3 times



Big mid still but … (?). — Compression? Or this is just normal for this style of a song? I tried cutting/wavering (zigging?) the EQ curve, dipping down into the mid but it seemed to just take too much away or alter the original sound too much (?)… I don’t know, it’s like fragile and only a “butterworth” (?) type cut/curve can not upset the delicacy therein/too much (?). — I don’t know just a guess. I like the way that people that went to school for this stuff and KNOW’’ are strangely absent around here! (well, there’s a few - but not enough shared IMO) — Even retired music engineers strangely silent in these matters (Where are they? On Facebook posting cat videos?) — Calling the spirit of Sam Phillips … (?) Maybe I shouldn’t do that — look what happened to Elvis… .

If you want a straight answer, you need to ask a straight (and comprehensible) question.
If you want broad and comprehensive information, then perhaps reading a book would be better (See: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/151-0258190-5401466?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=audio+engineer), or perhaps a course (http://bfy.tw/AmOm)

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

Lost in translation? Yeah - if I knew the question I’d probably know the answer, . You’ve been very helpful though. Just curious how some others who may not be so ‘lost in translation’ might chime in ever - but hey who would? - I seriously doubt a professional would be wasting time with such hobbyists - or whatever this isn’t. Thanks though — I’ll try to tame my prose into serious quests for indifferent calculations… sorry… I’ll keep trying though - I do have an artistic license you know. “Audacity - Where art meets computer science”.

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

Update/[still]tryin’ to get a decent sound from a $100 portable sound recorder (Tascam DR05) – On last edit of WTF I added the new EQ curve pictured last - well still not happy so I’m changing the album title to “Dead Folk Blues”, — don’t worry it’s a double entendre… Which way though? I’m not sure at this point!

So on the new edit, Edit G, I took three decibels off the big hump, see picture — and followed Geoffmobile’s insight, using SC4 RMS to ease down some of the angst. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcEQJBO1Kj0 Is he German? Seems like a nice guy… Surprised anyone survived there - after the banker’s bombed the **** out of that country back in the day… thanks Geoff, best wishes dude.

“WTF” (Explicit/ — Language may be offensive to some — but not as offensive as … (?) say, ‘Submission to your own genocide!’.).

UPDATE: I’ve switched sites around and at this time have a new mostly proprietary method of things (previous voided). If you like my new sound and want to know more about my editing techniques feel free to ask,

Ronald Newman
http://www.SoundCloud.com/BlackDogSongs

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

—PEAKY NOTES UPDATE 7456744: I redid my song “WTF (explicit)” (again!) (actually editing on top of previous edits) to try and get the still punchy [to me] sound down, I tried notch filtering all the skinny peaks, seen with the plot spectrum, but it did not sound good. So I added 2 dBs treble with the Bass/Treble effect while simultaneously pre-listening and fixing a few loud peaks before applying. Then laboriously normalizing to zero and fixing redlines until they sounded normal…
UPDATE: I’ve switched sites around and at this time have a new mostly proprietary method of things (previous voided). If you like my new sound and want to know about my editing techniques feel free to ask,

Ronald Newman
http://www.SoundCloud.com/BlackDogSongs

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

Hi, I’m trying to understand things … like this article, here’s an excerpt

Commencing in early 1950 Universal did the following:
1.
To improve separation we lowered the reverberation time of the studios,
added substantial amount of absorption at lower frequencies, using diaphragmatic
panels in convex splays. We increased the thickness of the blankets behind the perforated panels, by furring out the frame for added depth.

Can someone explain what this means/like for starters when I look for the definition of separation it of course is not in reference to music editing and when I look online at music editing glossaries/and the like… I do not see the term separation there.

reference:
putnam_history-of-recording-studios

[Black_Dog_Bluez]

Question (can someone share): What is the definition of “separation” in regards to sound editing? Or refer me too a free online dictionary of sound editing terms — one extensive enough that it includes what should be such a basic (included) term as “separation”, thank you.

[steve]

Commencing in early 1950 Universal did the following:

1. To improve separation we lowered the reverberation time of the studios,
   added substantial amount of absorption at lower frequencies, using diaphragmatic
   panels in convex splays. We increased the thickness of the blankets behind the perforated panels, by furring out the frame for added depth.

Translation:
To make recordings sound less mushy, and to increase the sense of distinct instruments and other sound sources, Universal spent a huge amount of money on the *acoustic treatment of their recording studios so as to reduce acoustic *reverberation.

*acoustic treatment: A Beginner's Guide To Acoustic Treatment
*reverberation: Reverberation - Wikipedia