Topic: Post Processing - technique and ethics

[boojum]

Hi - A board I sometimes post torrents to of legally recorded local bands has a "no tempering" policy. What this means is that you cannot in any way change the sound of what you have recorded. Now reading the DPA company's manuals and papers reveals that DPA considers it neccessary to adjust cardioid mic sounds to account for a bass deficiency. And sometimes I record in a room where the sound is way too bright and could you some attenuation.

So, I was wondering what you folks think about this. Please let me know. I sure do not see anything wrong in post-processing adjustment. I would not use compression.

Thanks.

[Brian Skalinder]

I think processing in post (including compression) can help many recordings.  I think a lot of people don't know how to do it well (especially EQ), and the final results often sound worse than the original.  I think if you want to edit your recordings and still seed them, you should find another board with less restrictive policies.

[cleantone]

I agree with BS ^^

If your talking about your own recordings... What would stop you from doing whatever the hell you want to and just not noting it on the text file? I never take the time to note anything that was done in post on my recordings.

[powermonkey]

Personally, I can't see the harm in processing your audio - say to remove a particularly loud scream, or to try and make up for a really bad room sound, or whatever - if it makes the recording sound better then by definition it also makes the band/artist you've recorded sound better, no?

[boojum]

Personally, I can't see the harm in processing your audio - say to remove a particularly loud scream, or to try and make up for a really bad room sound, or whatever - if it makes the recording sound better then by definition it also makes the band/artist you've recorded sound better, no?

Well, I agree with you all.  I have recorded stuff in rooms which are very bright and cause the recording to be a bit shrill.  And with a cardioid it will be weak on the bass end, especially my ECM-MS957.  I was relieved to learn DPA considers post-processing correction for cards neccessary.  But I am so new to this I am really unsure about what is "acceptable behavior."  For my own use I have no problem with tweaking to correct for venue problems.  I was just kind if unsure about stuff I posted after the comments I got on one board about this.  I feel quite a bit better.  ;o)

[greenone]

What board is this that you're talking about? While I don't necessarily agree with such a strict policy, I'm somewhat intrigued by one that takes such a purist view to the recordings it accepts...

[boojum]

I'd rather not let the personalities get involved in this.  I am not trying to point a finger.  I am just trying to gt a consensus.   

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

He actually posted this same question at the ETREE Forums.  The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing (see any one of the tapers vs. remaster arguements on BT.ETREE, or the recent MarMar incident that got him to pull all his PH torrents).

But ETREE also take into consideration that it happens, and we ask that you make note of it in your lineage.

ETREE isn't going to ban a torrent because is has some bass-roll off applied, etc.  It would just be nice to know, for the purist, how the recording was edited post-show. 

Terry

[BayTaynt3d]

IMHO, if it's your source, do whatever you want with it. 

[boojum]

Well, true, it is mine.  I also have to swim in the same stream as a lot of other fish, so it might be a good idea to see what direction they are swimming.  I think what would seem best is to post the unadulterated files to the board I post to and tweak another set for the band if they want one and to get the practice of cleaing up bad venues.  Or, I could post both and let the downloaders decide.  Looks like time to install that 400 GB HD in place of the 250.  I am sure happy the prices are down.

Thanks all for your exchange of ideas on this.  I am just learning and want to avoid the mistakes others have made as much as I can.

Cheers     

[VA_TAPER]

The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing (see any one of the tapers vs. remaster arguements on BT.ETREE, or the recent MarMar incident that got him to pull all his PH torrents).

Screw the purists, if they want a pure source hand them an SM-57 and a Sony cassette deck and send them on their way to tape to their hearts content.  Fact is; as a taper, we chose the damn equipment, picked the location, rolled the tape (or harddisc), usually enjoied the show less than others, and damnit if I want to apply compression, de-essing, mojo, pixie dust to a recording I'm gonna do it.  There are too many variables for any purist to think they can limit anything.  Next someone will tell me I can seed my tape because my cables weren't elevated on ceramic insulators and that the venue carpet acted as a dielectric and spoiled my source, ummmm....no.   

I do whatever I think sounds good, if someone else doesn't like it they can just be thankful that the majority of the western world doesn't pay per GB for downloads.

peace, chris

[huffy]

PVM480 duh they'll put some bass off up in ANY place
run them at center of horn height and just to the inside of the stax(no matter where you are at a rawk sho)for FAT onstage and good samples of what ever the fronts/bottoms can get ya that the stage don't kill...and gainiacs notwithstanding you will have a hyper accurate representation with no alteration...and if:
(ethics get around) run them hot but not over at all and use a compressor/limiter/leveler
DURING capture...and STRICTLY enforce that policy and then let us know how it works out for ya
(policy change)ANY shitty auds or sbds already suck already anyway why give them what you don't even want??you are there to help THEM so show them that and then point out that:
anything that YOU don't like the sound of to YOU is why eqs are in everybodys players already anyways so there's your already built in POST of none of your processing at all xtra gain stage so everybody that wants to even hear any of their stuff can make it their own version already anyways before they post process it themselves when YOU GIVE AWAY FREE STUFF FOR NOBODY TO PROFIT FROM BUT THE POLICY HOLDER duh

shupa cods are the only cods to own mics notwithstanding duh

Hi - A board I sometimes post torrents to of legally recorded local bands has a "no tempering" policy. What this means is that you cannot in any way change the sound of what you have recorded. Now reading the DPA company's manuals and papers reveals that DPA considers it neccessary to adjust cardioid mic sounds to account for a bass deficiency. And sometimes I record in a room where the sound is way too bright and could you some attenuation.

So, I was wondering what you folks think about this. Please let me know. I sure do not see anything wrong in post-processing adjustment. I would not use compression.

Thanks.

[wbrisette]

Screw the purists, if they want a pure source hand them an SM-57 and a Sony cassette deck and send them on their way to tape to their hearts content.  Fact is; as a taper, we chose the damn equipment, picked the location, rolled the tape (or harddisc), usually enjoied the show less than others, and damnit if I want to apply compression, de-essing, mojo, pixie dust to a recording I'm gonna do it.

Agree 101% 

With multitrack devices becoming more popular, it becomes a whole lot easier to "fix" things since you can now have control over compression and eq on a certain type of mic. Just because you didn't touch it with come type of compression or EQ doesn't mean it's going to sound better, the equipment has a lot to do with the final sound and honestly I don't think most people can tell what I'm doing in my recordings, because it's the final product they end up with that they are listening to. It's not my multitrack files which haven't been processed yet, and honestly just changing the mix a bit by bringing up a certain type of mics a few dB in the mix will change the sound of the show without any eq or compression. So, what say the purist there? I don't know, but I do think they are living in a very unrealistic world. And as people move to multitrack this is going to be a much bigger issue. I can guarantee you that I'm never giving anybody my multi-track files (unless they've paid me to do so -- paid job).

But I'm totally with Chris on this one. Let them record their own "unaltered" recordings if they want. I see it as our job to produce the best sounding recording. That usually requires some type of altering of what was captured.

Wayne

[macroint]

The concensus over there is that you should try and circulate the unadultered files since "remastering" may not actually be a good thing

I know this is more semantics/nitpicking...but wouldn't "remastering" be what someone does to a recording once it's been released? What we do in post, wouldn't that be called mastering (or something)?

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

We are obviously biased here since most of know how to use music software to varying degrees.  I think we are educated enough to be able to do any "mastering" (thanks Macroint) with good results.  Unfortunately, most ETREE users aren't as smart as we be...

The concensus at ETREE to avoid trading "remasters" is the same we have here - we don't want to see crappy remasters of shows.  We would rather see one unadulterated source that gets tweaked for your own archives. 

Anybody that has been keeping up with the disaster that is the GD DB.ETREE knows how much of a PITA it is when everybody and their brother decides to tweak a show and release it.  ETREE cannot restrict the trading of those files, but we can suggest to people that they do not trade these tweaks and just trade the original files. 

But then you look at the MarMar seeds.  It was "mastered", then "Remastered" which caused an uproar over at ETREE.  MarMar (stupidly) pulled all his torrents from BT. 

I'm also not sure how many threads this past month I've fielded because people are complaining about a simple SHN>FLAC conversion is "pollution". 

I think there is more to this than meets the eyes, and depending on who you ask (and how you ask), you will get a different response.  But like I said before, do what you like, they are your tapes.

Terry