At 1:13 AM +0000 2/7/09, Greg Simmons wrote:
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
>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.
I'm using the same, basic chain.
>
>> 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?
For me, "correct" tonal balance is kind of like "correct" color
temperature for lighting-- there are different color pallets to chose
from. I usually EQ critical material from scratch at least three
times at different sittings and then compare all three before
refining the one I like best. Sure is powerful to be able to save all
of the adjustments compared to on-the-fly mix settings of yore.
> 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?
If so, I've been looking for it for a very long time! :-) . I
attenuate resonant frequencies to improve depth and transparency. The
sources of these sounds come from many distances and directions and
they're changing all the time-- even in the dead of night. There are
3-5 frequencies that seem to be the result of standing waves within
the hollow where the mics are located and the valley canyons beyond.
The amplitudes of these standing waves vary with temperature,
humidity and wind and distant sources like land and air traffic, farm
machinery, power transformers, etc. Of course, in the warmer months
there are different, sustained, background elements to include in the
balance like amphibians, insects, running water, etc.
>
>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.
Most of the better EQ plugs have fully programmable perimeters; its
tricky for me to keep track of what I'm doing when.
I had some discussion with a couple of capable programmers about what
I'd like to see in equalization plugs. Most of what I need revolves
around detecting sinusoidal waves which should make the task simpler,
I thought. They pointed out that there are a half dozen noise
reduction apps which, in part, analyze and attempt to dynamically
attenuate sinusoidal waves. I didn't learn what makes the task is so
challenging, but if the effectiveness of these apps on broadband
material is an indication-- we might need to provide some kind of
assistance if we hope to get help any time soon. Rob D.
>
>- Greg Simmons
>
--
|