--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
> By chance, it occurred to me to explore this technique again
> yesterday afternoon on a number of files recorded with my Parallel
> Barrier Array.
Cue theme from Twilight Zone?
> The middle EQ steps you describe proved to be
> quite involved <snip>
That depends on what software you're using. I've done it with Wavelab with the
ToolsOne
plug-in. The signal path would be ToolsOne to encode to MS, through a
two-channel EQ
plug-in that allows L and R to be EQ'd differently, then back through ToolsOne
to decode
back to LR. That combination (Wavelab + ToolsOne) works well for that kind of
thing using
a stereo interleaved file. It might not be so easy in other app's.
> and I found that the best "adjustment" wouldn't work
> nearly as well on another file or section of the file when the
> background tonal balance changed appreciably from conditions like a
> rising breeze or distant man-made drone.
Yes, that makes sense (unfortunately).
Or perhaps it is an indicator that the 'best' adjustment wasn't quite right? If
a recording is
made with the same microphone rig in the same location, does it stand to reason
that a
single compensating EQ is all that *should* be needed?
I am often surprised at how I can come back to something I've mastered after a
half-hour
break and decide that there's too much this or that... and yet, before the
break I was
totally happy with it.
But in the situation we're discussing, we're often shifting our listening focus
from near to
distant and back again, which changes the scene anyway.
> Dynamic EQ, I guess, is the next
> step.
Indeed. There are some programs that offer such things, but for a situation
like this it
might still be difficult.
- Greg Simmons
|