At 10:04 AM -0700 5/5/08, Dan Dugan wrote:
DAN DUGAN
>Narrow-band notches are used to take out specific frequency noises
>or resonances. The differences between mics will almost always be of
>a broader-band nature.
Rob D.
The frequency response differences are broader and smoother, but my
match experiment factors in noise and noise, especially HF, can be
very narrow. I'll make a demo of this if you'd like further
description.
DAN DUGAN
>It may well be that you are equalizing resonant peaks in your monitor/
>room situation, or individual frequencies that happen to be present in
>that particular recording.
Rob D.
If I was accommodating peaks in my monitoring systems, wouldn't the
same bandwidths show-up with each file/system? Nothing like that
happens. To be sure, I confirm each peak with at least two different
systems. I am familiar with this phenomenon.
DAN DUGAN
>A more effective approach is to do detailed equalization of your
>monitor system. Then use broad-band equalization on program files
>that will have a better chance of being useful on
>other recordings and other monitor systems.
Rob D.
Improved universality is key goal for me. Its my experience that the
settings are recording location/mic specific. Every time I've thought
I've created "the" calibration or translation setting for my
monitoring systems or mics, I create better settings starting from
scratch. I get closer to "universal" results from playing my EQ
trials on different systems than trying to work from one master
reference. My amps and speakers are good, not $3K Genelecs though.
Basically, I try to find the most critical adjustments that will help
and make the cuts sequentially and conservatively. I do go back and
simplify with wider notches sometimes. The second and third times
through a recording, I know where the clusters. I can almost always
get better results with multiple narrow, bands with both the
Sennheiser and Rode mics I use.
I use Eqium more for notching and Firium for tonal shaping. Firium
uses linear phase processing-- though Eqium is surprisingly
forgiving.
For those who are curious about these tools, I came across these
links to free (older version) demos of Firium and Eqium (prior to the
Roger Nichols buy-out) for Mac OSX:
Firium:
http://www.tucows.com/preview/280099
Eqium:
http://www.tucows.com/preview/280104
I personally can't test them out. I hope they work
Rob D wrote:
> > (For those who are curious) In order to detect "exaggerated" pitches
>> in broad bandwidth recordings, I alternate between headphones and
>> speakers fading-in the volume from silence to a low play level a
>> number of times listening for the loudest sustained pitch that
>> "stands out." Pitches that stand out seem to protrude towards the
>> ears rather seem to reside _within_ the illusionary stereo space.
>> The increased volume of the exaggerated pitches tend to mask other
>> pitches/elements in the recording. The result can be more tonally
>> balanced playback. Raising the playback volume can sound more like
>> one is opening a window to another space that lies "behind the
>> speaker" compared to simply increasing the sound level that seems to
>> come _out_ of the speaker. Rob D.
Dan:
>I agree with that description of the improvement that equalization can
>provide--but monitors come first if you're going to work at that level
>of detail.
>
I used to three speaker systems but I've resorted to speakers and
phones because many folks use their computers and phones almost
exclusively for privacy. In the tiny house I'm in right now, phones
are the only way I can work until everyone leaves. Speakers are
essential for dynamics and they are much better test for final EQ
than phones too. I'm glad my EQ goal description makes some sense to
you. Rob D.
--
|