From: Marty Michener <>
> In practice, the continuous curve which COOL lets you manipulate at each=
> point apparently proves to be too much intellectually for most nature sou=
nd
> users, anyway, judging from the total lack of follow-up on these
> discussions, so your parametric equalizer probably works better for most=
> users. And yes, I do seem to be making a very snobby point, here, so let=
's
> please hear some responses. [Any response would be better than those I
> have received on the last three questions I have asked. . . .=3D none wha=
tever.]
My past system was primarily based on appropriate individual filters set
at appropriate frequency points, using a stack of them in a filter
matrix. This would be followed in the stack by a trainable noise filter
applied sparingly. And then at the end of the stack a realtime sonogram
to see what happened.
I'm slowly moving to Elemental Audio's Equium and Firium plug in's to
cover a lot of the equalizer functions:
http://www.elementalaudio.com/products/index.html
These provide quite a bit more bells and whistles than a straight
parametric. Creating a whole batch of frequency based filtering that can
be used at once. Has a nice graphic interface.
I recently got their new plug-in Neodynium, I'm hoping that will replace
the simpler dynamics processor in SoundHack that I've been using. In
Elemental Audio's own words Neodynium is a graphic, multi-regional
dynamics processor. Fundamentally it allows you to apply compression in
bands of audio levels. The SoundHack dynamics processor I would use to
drop very quiet filtering artifacts down out of audibility, this looks
like a more advanced version of the same thing. Dynamics processing is
tricky in any case.
> I just got back from a week's (computer) absence, more or less. The answ=
er
> to your earlier question about COOL: "Why not be able to decrease the
> sounds at ZERO frequency", is --- there really IS no zero frequency.
> Logically, this would be DC =3D direct current, with no variations in vol=
tage
> ever - at least for a very long time -- several millennia?! So the COOL=
> software realistically sets the lowest frequency it can reasonably contro=
l
> to 20 Hz -- mas o menos. Practically, 20 - 30 Hz means zero to you and
> me. Not to worry.
That is unless you possess and record with a MKH-110. Then 20 is only
part way there. Infrasound, if you can record it and play it back, has
considerable effect on the listener. A lot of the emotional content of
sound is down there.
> My oft-repeated rule I hereby reiterate and develop: The final files soun=
d
> best, at least for bird recordings to most laymen, (I don't know about
> frogs or loud roaring beasties files) when the lower frequency realm
> closely approximates equal sound energies for every octave, with no singl=
e
> dominating tone or set of overtones. If you do have a loud hum, then
> reduce it to EQUAL the other sounds, on average. But if you leave a file=
> with missing frequency ranges between 20 and 2000 Hz, laymen will notice =
a
> "hollow" sound, which often seems to bother normal listening.
I would not always go along with this, though it's probably about right
for listening, ambient recordings. A light hand is always best here.
But, if your purpose is to hack out a sample clip of a single species
call from the whole you can get much more elaborate with the filtering.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|