Topic: Pre/Post Processing?

[jimi56]

This is more of an opinon thing than technical so i went with this forum.  What are your stances on pre and post processing.  Mostly i'm talking about using an equalizer at the show and then software post-processing, ala audacity or soundforge. 

I've bounced back and forth between yes and no myself.  Before i knew anything about recording and the like, i kind of liked to find the shows with pure sources, but now i wouldn't mind a little EQ tweak here or there maybe some volume boosts after the fact. 

For arguements sake, lets disregard powering and carrying an EQ unit or any effects/processing unit.  Obvioulsy i'm not talking preamps for gain and the like.

Thoughts?

[RebelRebel]

The problem with processing is that a lot of kids dont know what they are doing, and do it on a computer with kmart speakers and in a room that isnt suitable...with no experience mastering/mixing whatsoever. if it is for your own listening it is one thing, but to tweak something and spread it not knowing how it will translate to other peoples playback or ears even is another..Volume boosts are acceptable(IMHO), but EQ is a whole different ballgame, and is really the realm of the professionals(for mass distribution) ..if you do EQ it(and youll get some that turn their noses up at you) list exactly what you did. A lot of tapers are listening to sources to get a feel for how a mic/pre combo sounds and EQ screws with that ...my 2cents...

This is more of an opinon thing than technical so i went with this forum.  What are your stances on pre and post processing.  Mostly i'm talking about using an equalizer at the show and then software post-processing, ala audacity or soundforge. 

I've bounced back and forth between yes and no myself.  Before i knew anything about recording and the like, i kind of liked to find the shows with pure sources, but now i wouldn't mind a little EQ tweak here or there maybe some volume boosts after the fact. 

For arguements sake, lets disregard powering and carrying an EQ unit or any effects/processing unit.  Obvioulsy i'm not talking preamps for gain and the like.

Thoughts?

[scoper]

I do NO post-processing on my tapes, except for clip repair if needed, and normalizing the waveform.

I agree that everyone's ears are different, and I don't want to impose my sense of what sounds good to the next person. That's what tone controls or equilizers on playback equipment is for.

I've heard my original tapes "remastered" by some "experts" withing the Springsteen fan community, and have universally hated the result. People are way too heavy-handed, especially boosting the low and high end to try to give the tapes a little "presence".

Leave it to the pros.

Scott

[Bdifr78]

IMO volume boosts are the only thing that is cool.  But like Ray said if your not sharing the recording, do what ever sounds good to you.  One time I adjusted a recording by cutting some bass and screwing slightly with the upper end, I only did that because the recording was virtually unlistenable without any adjustment.  When I listen to the tape a few weeks or months later, I really want to know how the room sounded and how the equipment I used with specific mic configs and locations sounded.  Kinda as a learning opportunity.  When you are running entry level gear I can understand the temptation to make it sound better, but in reality you probably just need new mics.

[cleantone]

The problem with processing is that a lot of kids dont know what they are doing, and do it on a computer with kmart speakers and in a room that isnt suitable...with no experience mastering/mixing whatsoever. if it is for your own listening it is one thing, but to tweak something and spread it not knowing how it will translate to other peoples playback or ears even is another..Volume boosts are acceptable(IMHO), but EQ is a whole different ballgame, and is really the realm of the professionals(for mass distribution)

I agree with this 100%

..if you do EQ it(and youll get some that turn their noses up at you) list exactly what you did. A lot of tapers are listening to sources to get a feel for how a mic/pre combo sounds and EQ screws with that ...my 2cents...

I don't personally feel the need to list the parameters on any EQ or compression I might use. I also feel that there are far too many variables from show to show and whatnot to truely be able to get a sense of mic/pre combo's with any real results that this isn't a factor for me. My goal is to make the best recording I can make and if some EQ or compression is helpful with that I'll use it. I don't have a real control room but I try not to be extreme as a real matering engineer in a real mastering suite coudl or would be. I also have been doing it for about a decade and probably only got somewhat good in that last 6 or so years. If you do not have a decent playback system you best off sticking with volume changes if any.

[TNJazz]

Agree completely with Ray and cleantone.  If you don't have a good room and a good system, you have no idea how it will translate.

I don't do anything to my 2 track recordings.  I want them to represent what it sounded like in the room.

I try to be as minimalist as possible with my multitrack recordings as well.  A little verb, some light EQ possibly, and maybe a little compression (everything I do is a separate split, so of course it's pre-everything).  That's about all though, because I'm not a professional mixing engineer.  I track it and let other folks deal with that end of things.

So how many of you secretly chuckle and roll your eyes when you see the word "remastered" listed in a DIME torrent?  I know I do...

[Brian Skalinder]

A few thoughts from a PM discussion (slightly edited for public consumption) I had with momule and mmmatt, and a comment or two from and in response to the To Normalize or Not thread:

Of course, the decision about whether or not to master depends in large part on the master recording itself.  I generally find myself recording in smallish venues, from close-to-ideal location, with pretty good sound systems and sound engineers.  As a result, I find fewer issues in most of my recordings (to my ears) than those from larger or less ideal venues / locations.

This very minimal comparative listening [we listened to a couple original and mastered samples] illustrates, to me, anyway, one of the primary reasons I don't do much mastering beyond a bit of gain/compression (and then only if necessary, for example if the HUGE dynamic range in a recording - rarely the case when recording PAs - makes playback at reasonable volumes difficult without constantly adjusting the playback volume):  it's very, very difficult to master in such a way that everyone finds it equally pleasing.

Ultimately, for me it comes down to three issues:

<1> Numbers Game
<2> Effectiveness
<3> Personal Preference and Priorities

<1> Numbers Game
In some respect, it comes down to a numbers game:  should I master in the hopes of pleasing X% of listeners at the potential expense of disappointing Y% of listeners?  Ideally, X = a high number and Y = a low number, and *I* fall into the X (pleased) category.  From a previous post:

My target audiences for my recordings, in order of priority:

<1>  me
<2>  fellow tapers and friends
<3>  the masses

So I master accordingly:  for me.  It just so happens that many of my <2> friends and fellow tapers are also interested in hearing recordings in their full dynamic glory.  I'm not especially concerned about <3> those who wish to listen to recordings on the crappiest car sound system on the planet and therefore would prefer if I compress the snot out of my recordings.  So since I have no real interest in "mastering" my recordings for the masses, I don't.

As it is these days, I generally seed 2 sources:  24-bit and 16-bit.  The additional time, effort, HD space, and bandwidth are not worth it to me to ensure I satisfy the masses.

Were I to produce a recording on behalf of a band as an official release, then my target audience would have changed.  Hence, my decision of whether and how to master may change accordingly.

<2> Effectiveness

As others mentioned in bits and pieces in the "to normalize or not" thread, and I clarified and summarized in one of my posts, it's incredibly difficult to master unless one has ALL of the following:

• knowledge
• experience
• proper tools
• great ears
• proper monitoring gear

Very few tapers / hobbyists have the knowledge and experience.  Granted, one may learn the knowledge and gain the experience, but that takes time and for many tapers, it's just a hobby and as such other life activities take priority.  Those with the knowledge and experience are probably in a position, and motivated, to acquire the proper tools.  Not much to say about great ears - some have it, most don't.  But even if all these factors vall fall into place, I know almost no tapers who have proper monitoring gear.

<3> Personal Preference and Priorities

Anyway...to summarize my perspective (again drawn from the thread spurring the discussion), in my situation, I don't - and likely won't start to - master much, if at all, because:

• I generally like the way they sound
• I don't find the benefits worth the additional time and effort (when balanced against other life priorities)
• I don't have a proper monitoring environment
• I make the recordings for my ears, and my playback, and am not set up with proper monitors to ensure it sounds "just so" on everyone's playback system
• the venues in which I record generally sound good - have good PAs, good people behind the board, not horrible (and granted not great, either) acoustics, etc., and I make the effort to secure a good location for my ambient mics
• the minor imperfections - and I don't mean something so blaringly awful that the recording's downright unlistenable - all contribute in some way to the character of the recording;  the flaws are part of the experience for me, just as I find a live band - warts and all - appealing.

[jimi56]

Just to clarify... I personally don't ever plan on running pre-EQ or pre anything.  I'd like to think i have a good ear, but still, i want to capture  as close to whats happening then, so pre processing live recordings is just a no IMO.  Studio works are different, production can be as much a part of the album as the music.

Post production stuff... I suppose if i HAVE to i'll do a normalization/volume boost.  But sometimes that will just boost ambiance noise, so i just hope that i get the levels right so that its not needed.  Plus it seems to me low end mics/cables can introduce hiss that might not come out till an overall boost is applied, so for me its all about getting it right the first time.  I guess thats why i have a hard time just setting it an walking away, always that itching feeling that i need to double check those meters. 

I'd like to do nothing to recording except track it and shave off uneeded audiance noise pre-set and pre encore.  I tend to avoid recordings that go through any kind of production when it comes to shows.  For me, its trying to capture a moment.  I'm new to running a rig at live shows but i've dabbled enough in some home studio stuff that i didn't totally freak when i had to plug it in and hit record.  I was just thinking about this whole issue this morning and thought i'd bounce it around here.  With the BT and archive.org to distribute recordings its easy for people to get thing out to the masses, and often we get a variety of sources from a single show.  I'm seeing more production going into some distributions and was just curious about the majority opinion on it, esspecially the opinion of those more experienced than myself. 

[cleantone]

Post production stuff... I suppose if i HAVE to i'll do a normalization/volume boost.  But sometimes that will just boost ambiance noise, so i just hope that i get the levels right so that its not needed.  Plus it seems to me low end mics/cables can introduce hiss that might not come out till an overall boost is applied, so for me its all about getting it right the first time.  I guess thats why i have a hard time just setting it an walking away, always that itching feeling that i need to double check those meters.

Your definitly correct about not applying EQ or anything else as your recordings. You can't undo it and your obviously not in a control room where you can monitor properly when recording a live concert. You points about adding ambiance and or noise. I think I'm right when I say that if you have a recording with 6db of headroom, then boost the track 6 db in post. This would change your noise floor. I have to assume it would be the same change as turning the volume up 6db on playback though too. At least I think it would be the same.

[jeromejello]

i will generally normalize to -0.20dB in post... this takes care of any clips that might have popped in (i am still tweaking my rig)

on the show i just recorded sunday night... the crowes opened the second set with an acoustic number that i bumped +8dB in post with a fade into the original level during the applause/tuning before the next tune... that came out ok... oh, and i did bump the left channel in the first set +0.5odB as well (again, still getting the hang of the mics)

that was the most post i've done for a show... it was all pretty non-intrusive, but it was noted in the text file if anyone didnt want that.

as far as EQ'ing... that is something that i want nothing to do with for the previously mentioned reasons.... tim's system sounds different than ray's, which sound different from mine, and lets not forget moke... can he even hear it?   .*  anything other than a normalization, or a simple volume boost is going too far for something that is going to circulate.

** edit to add:  relax ticket nazis... it was meant in jest... moke owns your soul anyhow... it was just a general stab at team aarp, which we will all join one day **

[Brian Skalinder]

I think I'm right when I say that if you have a recording with 6db of headroom, then boost the track 6 db in post. This would change your noise floor. I have to assume it would be the same change as turning the volume up 6db on playback though too. At least I think it would be the same.

As I understand it, adding the gain in post, in the digital realm, wouldn't change the noise floor so much as raise the noise floor along with the audio.  The relative difference between audio and noise floor remains unchanged.

For example, if the audio peaks at -7 dB and the noise floor's at -77 dB (a difference of 70 dB), adding +6 dB in the digital realm would result in audio of -1 dB and noise floor at -71 dB (still a difference of 70 dB).

This is why it's so important to get your levels set well while recording - it maximizes the audio relative to the noise floor.  Using the example above:  assuming the same noise floor at the time of recording, -77 dB, setting proper levels at the time of recording to say -1 dB would result in a difference between the audio and noise floor of 76 dB.  So setting your levels properly at the time of recording maximizes the audio relative to the noise floor.

[Jhurlbs81]

So for those of you who say, "no pre-EQ"..what about HPFs on the V3?  I always note which setting was used, (Slope 1 or 2).  Thoughts?

I have heard the argument, "you can always roll off the bass after the fact" 

But if you are in a bass heavy room/location wouldn't running the HPF give you more room for the other frequencies? 

[Digital Quality]

Scaling in the digital domain is also adds a new layer of errors - requanitzation noise. It's not clear to me if the tools take care of this with some added dither or if they leave it up to us to do. Either way, errors are added each time you do a digital scaling. Dithering can fix it up somewhat but post processing is destructive.

[bconnolly]

So how many of you secretly chuckle and roll your eyes when you see the word "remastered" listed in a DIME torrent?  I know I do...

I chuckle out loud.  Verbosely.

As far as post-processing, I don't like doing anything too involved or crazy with what I record though I do delight in having them boosted a little bit in Wavelab to sound "fuller" and "cleaner".  I sent my 2006-01-28 recording to Kfrinkle and he did some jazzy jazz to it in Wavelab.  I got it back from him and was amazed at how much nicer the recording sounded.

Is that so wrong?

[jimi56]

Yeah that makes sense about the noise floor.  I might just be thinking of times when i had to do some crappy transfers to a PC via mic port.  That just introduced more noise, obviously.  (don't worry, that was long ago and i had no idea what i was doing..never will happen again )   

All this level talk just makes me want to get a set of meters for the UA-5 that much sooner....