naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Filtering

Subject: Re: Filtering
From: "Curt Olson" flipov411
Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:51 am ((PDT))
Rob makes fine recommendations here for standard processing. But for 
digital noise reduction, multiple passes of lighter processing is 
indeed best.

Curt Olson

On Jun 23, 2008, at 6:22 AM,  wrote:

> 1e. Re: Filtering
>     Posted by: "Rob Danielson"  danielson_audio
>     Date: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:52 pm ((PDT))
>
> --- In  "Chris Hails" <>
> wrote:
>>
>> --- In  "Aaron Ximm" <aaron.ximm@>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone here has said on occasion that it is better to do a few
> very
>>> light passes, than one deep passage.... was that you Dan? Rob?
>>>
>>>  best,
>>>   aaron
>
> Several years back, I described using "stacked plugs" as a work-
> around for parametric EQ plug-ins that only provide a few bands when
> more bands are required.  I can't think of a reason to use mulitple
> passes when one can makes all the necessary changes at once.  I try
> to follow the "simpler is better" axiom and often combine several
> types of digital processing like EQ, balance, gain, phase and
> increasing bit depth into one, final, step when out-putting a file.
> When I'm having trouble judging which equalization settings/effects
> produce the best results, I output the varied attempts and compare
> them back to back in a timeline.
>
> I can see the merit in taking time with the judgements, but not in
> spreading the decisions out over multiple processing passes. Rob D.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU