Topic: The proper way to postprocess a tape?

[Aladar]

Hi,
first of all, I hope I'm not posting it in wrong forum, but I couldn't really find any more fitting one..

So anyway, I was thinking, what is the proper way to tweak a tape after it's recorded? And what's your favourite software to do it in? I want to tweak this recording in particular (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?gyzbdlhenqr). I was thinking maybe fade in/out and some gain reduction? Is there anything else that I could do? Also, what's the easiest way to split it into tracks? Just the old select-and-cut method?

Thanks.

[easy jim]

I think the only 'rule' is that you should always keep a copy of the raw transfer files.

[Aladar]

I wasn't really looking for rules, more like tips of how do I make it sound better.

[Gutbucket]

Like Easy says, keep a copy of the originals.

Fades, tracking and simple level adjustments are simple and straight forward enough.  Many leave it at that, wisely and with good reason (not just becasue they don't want to have to do too much work).

Anything beyond that is highly dependent on your monitoring system.  The most powerful and effective corrective tool in my mind is careful use of EQ.  But any changes to the original recording beyond those mentioned above are so closely tied to the room and playback system used when making those changes that you need to be very cautious.  Professinal mastering engineers go to extreme lengths to get their entire room and system as balanced as possible and still work hard at learning how to make things translate elsewhere, even when it sounds great in their perfectly tweaked room.  It takes a lot of careful listening and sometimes minute adjustments to get things just right and even then you may be correcting your playback system as much as the recording- so your post-processed recordings might sound greatly improved at home, but worse than the original un-EQ'd files on someone else's system.  Same goes for compression of the music's dynamics beyond simple level changes which is especially tricky to do well IMO.  Plenty examples of poorly 'remasted' live recordings being shared/traded that are only improvements in the mind of the improver and on his dorm room computer speakers / earbuds used to make the changes.  Some here are adamantly opposed to any significant EQ changes because of that.  I think it's obvious that improvements can usually be made, but it takes refined skills and tools to do so (not referring to the software used primarily, but the much more fundamentally important room and playback system).  There is alot of information on the site about what can be done and debating whether doing anything at all is a wises choice.  Dig in.

Just a warning to be careful of the 'fixes' you will be tempted to make once you get deeper into it.

[easy jim]

^ Gutbucket sums it up very well.  By using the search tool, you should be able to find several threads I recall from the past few years regarding different members' opinions as to whether it is 'good' to post-process or not, how much if so, and what tools/approaches may be more or less appropriate.

Personally, I use Digital Performer for editing (multitrack DAW software for the Mac platform), and I typically apply some post-production to all of my recordings, most of which are from 4 track raw sources.  I think most here would agree that minimal post-prod. on 2 track stereo sources is preferred (peak normalize, fade in/out, and splitting tracks).

Gutbucket's warning to be mindful of the 'fixes' you'll be tempted to make, and how they may or may not translate on other playback systems, is an important point.  Also, the more you get into it and learn both how to use the tools you choose (editing software, etc.) as well as developing your ears for fine tuning, the more your skill will improve.

[Brian Skalinder]

There are several links to post-processing discussions in this forum's README1st sticky thread.

[Aladar]

Thanks everyone! One last question though - What's the easiest way to split tracks?

There are several links to post-processing discussions in this forum's README1st sticky thread.

Oh, I'm sorry.. I swear I read those threads, must've missed it..

[Scooter123]

My basic out of the box processing protocol is

60htz highpass
10-16ms delay between channels
volume boost
compression
save as 16 bit
splitting

I use Goldwave.  It has the feature of bulk processing, so I can do the first four process in one click of the button.  Yeah, it takes an hour(s) or more to process a long concert, but I just click the processes I want to do, and Goldwave does it while I sleep.

[jerazis]

   CD wave is free software but it only works on 16 bit files for tracking. Mastering software I use Wave lab, love it! but the onboard mastering tools are not that good. Pic yourself up a UAD card, they ofer the best computer mastering plugins on the market.  As far as making tapes sound better, just make sure you have a good transfer system. I would say there is no one set of rules as far as making it sound better. I've been transferring many old DEAD tapes from the 80's. Most of the time there is no bass beyond 40 hz so i roll it off and same on the high end around 16 khz i roll off as well takes out some of the hiss.  Oh ya and as far as your room goes for acoustics even if your room is not up to par figure out what your limitations are. ALWAYS look at FFT meter it will show you the sound even if it cant be heard properly.
   

[runonce]

   CD wave is free software...

Not so...It's shareware. You should pay...

[bgreen]

    Mastering software I use Wave lab, love it! but the onboard mastering tools are not that good. Pic yourself up a UAD card, they ofer the best computer mastering plugins on the market.
 

Could not say enough good about UAD. Absolutely love there stuff, worth every penny you spend on it.

[Jhurlbs81]

Seems like everyone bypassed the basics, so lets start there..the order you process is important.  If you EQ a show then normalize you'll get different results then you would if you normalizd first.  So order is important.  I tend to perfer a small EQ, then normalizing.  When I EQ I like to stick to eliminating resonant frequencies.  Pull up an EQ and playback your file- drop down each fader til you find the ugly frequency that is taking up too much space and trim it back.  Boosting frequencies in my experience makes the recording sound unnatural and forced.  Also, keep in mind you're EQ'ing a sound source that is constantly being adjusted.  You may find the mix to be too thick at the beginning of the set, but by the 3-4 song the FOH engineer has made corrections on his end.  Less is more..Hope these general tips help.

[kirk97132]

   CD wave is free software but it only works on 16 bit files for tracking.

Wrong it works for 24 bit files too

[jaz]

Not on my PC, I must have an old version or something. When I tried to drop 24bit files in the program say " bad format CD wav can only handle 8 or 16 bit sample files." not an issue to me I use wave lab for tracks these days.