Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: vegeta_ban on August 24, 2013, 11:49:43 AM
-
On saturday Peach Fest I had to throw my socks over my windscreens to cut down on wind noise, it lowered my high end noticebly. Any suggestions other than what sounds good to my ears on EQ'ing in audacity?
-
On saturday Peach Fest I had to throw my socks over my windscreens to cut down on wind noise, it lowered my high end noticebly. Any suggestions other than what sounds good to my ears on EQ'ing in audacity?
Realistically, it's just EQ.
-
On saturday Peach Fest I had to throw my socks over my windscreens to cut down on wind noise, it lowered my high end noticebly. Any suggestions other than what sounds good to my ears on EQ'ing in audacity?
At the end of the day its your ears that have to be happy. So apply what is needed to bring it to that point. Remember in the world of eq less is more. Sometimes taking away things helps clear things up sometimes adding things helps clear things up. I prefer a parametric plugin if you are going to do some surgical correction. Also remember you cant always fix everything knowing when to stop is as important as knowing when to try and correct things. Its actually not a bad idea if you can make measurements before and after your windscreen to see what is going on take a recording of pink noise put your mic less than 1 foot away from your sound source and do a recording with and with out the sock. See what is going on then you have a better idea of the frequencies involved. But no matter what let your ears be the final judge.. Measurements are great to be able to see whats going on and to see if it jives with what you are actually hearing.
-
Thanks, I'll edit to how it hears for me. I'll test later to see what it does remove too.
-
If you have a good flat speaker system at home and can measure the frequency response of what is coming into your microphones, compare with an rta the sock setup to the wind screenless microphone.
Then create an eq curve to compensate.
-
If you have a good flat speaker system at home and can measure the frequency response of what is coming into your microphones, compare with an rta the sock setup to the wind screenless microphone.
Then create an eq curve to compensate.
Thats pretty much what I said. However you dont need a flat speaker. You just need to be able to do an overlay of the response curves. Before and after.
For example this is a graph of my CAFS omni mics and one of my calibrated measurement mics my ACO 7052S The ACO is flat from 20hz to 20khz the deviation between the two is :
A the size of the capsule in the sound field
B the difference in relative flatness between the two.
So in the op's case because he is comparing apples to apples - the windscreen it will be very obvious the side effects of the sock even with speakers that are not flat. My speakers are pretty flat from 20hz to 20khz Most of what you are seeing in the curves is the room. If I had a true anechoic chamber this response curve would be much flatter. As would most speakers that are designed properly.
.
-
On saturday Peach Fest I had to throw my socks over my windscreens to cut down on wind noise, it lowered my high end noticebly. Any suggestions other than what sounds good to my ears on EQ'ing in audacity?
At the end of the day its your ears that have to be happy. So apply what is needed to bring it to that point. Remember in the world of eq less is more. Sometimes taking away things helps clear things up sometimes adding things helps clear things up. I prefer a parametric plugin if you are going to do some surgical correction. Also remember you cant always fix everything knowing when to stop is as important as knowing when to try and correct things. Its actually not a bad idea if you can make measurements before and after your windscreen to see what is going on take a recording of pink noise put your mic less than 1 foot away from your sound source and do a recording with and with out the sock. See what is going on then you have a better idea of the frequencies involved. But no matter what let your ears be the final judge.. Measurements are great to be able to see whats going on and to see if it jives with what you are actually hearing.
i think this ^^^ post sums it up nicely. excellent advice.
1. as along as your ears are happy, that's what's most important.
2. less is more.
the only thing i would add is this... if you're really anal about EQ listen to your recordings on different speakers. sometimes the EQ you apply based on what you hear through one set of speakers or headphones doesn't sound too good on another set. i usually EQ my recordings using headphones, but then will listen on my car stereo and home stereo to make sure that i got it right.
-
if you're really anal about EQ listen to your recordings on different speakers. sometimes the EQ you apply based on what you hear through one set of speakers or headphones doesn't sound too good on another set. i usually EQ my recordings using headphones, but then will listen on my car stereo and home stereo to make sure that i got it right.
QFT
I have multiple environments that I'll beta-test something in to get an idea of what I'm actually doing.
-
I use wave labs vst plugins multiband compressor if I need to EQ/tweak a recording, which is very rare!
-
I use wave labs vst plugins multiband compressor if I need to EQ/tweak a recording, which is very rare!
Um, what? Why alter the dynamic range of (multiple parts of) the recording to fix a frequency response issue? :facepalm:
This question has been answered, and answered simply:
1. Measure the HF rolloff caused by the sock.
2. Compensate with an equivalent EQ boost.
Dynamic range manipulation (even if tailored to the offending frequency range), while it might make the recording sound better for other reasons, has nothing to do with this particular issue.
Buy hey, at least your new mk4/mk41 systems for multiple stages are "minty!" :laugh:
-
I use wave labs vst plugins multiband compressor if I need to EQ/tweak a recording, which is very rare!
Um, what? Why alter the dynamic range of (multiple parts of) the recording to fix a frequency response issue? :facepalm:
This question has been answered, and answered simply:
1. Measure the HF rolloff caused by the sock.
2. Compensate with an equivalent EQ boost.
Dynamic range manipulation (even if tailored to the offending frequency range), while it might make the recording sound better for other reasons, has nothing to do with this particular issue.
Buy hey, at least your new mk4/mk41 systems for multiple stages are "minty!" :laugh:
Have you used wave labs multiband compressor? I just tweak the low end usually. Just to add or subtract a few db. But I'm not hip to all this technical stuff :( for recording as long as I have been, I am pretty dumb about most stuff in my DAW! I RARELY tweak anything. I just do what sounds good to me ;)
And HELLS yeah, my setups are MINTY! :P ;D