Syntrillium Backup Forums :: View topic

SJM · Posts: 78

First off...after starting to put together my home studio around three years ago, I can honestly say that I'm pleased with the choices I've made in both hardware and software (most notable: Tascam 788 digital recorder and of course CEP). I've put out some good stuff, far better than I've ever thought possible.
With all the bells and whistles at my disposal I'm coming up short in one area, EQ mastering. I have reasonable flat studio-type monitors (MAudio Studiophile) and Izotope's Ozone and still I'm having difficulty in getting it to sound good on a variety of players. It seems to me that there should be a plugin that would allow users to sample the EQ of a selected file and then compare that average EQ to the work in progress. Also, the user could make adjustments to the EQ to match that of the sampled file. I've found that Ozone's EQ area doesn't help me much in that area.(Also, I've heard too many bad things about Freefilter so let's not go there).
Is there a plugin out there that can do this?

Many thanks,
Stephen

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Well SJM,
If you manage to find one, be sure and share it with us cause.... Steinberg's FreeFilter is the only one that I'm aware of. Haven't used it personally, so I can't attest to the..."heard too many bad things about..." part.

Jim Smitherman · Posts: 352

SJM · Posts: 78

Jim,
First off...thanks for the reply
I've tried Ozone's EQ section just as you have described but with undesirable results (and I'm at a loss as to why).
While we're on the subject, as much as I like Ozone, I wish they had given the user choices of interfaces for EQ'ing. I'd much prefer sliders instead of moving points on a flexible line.
If Syntrillium is listening, please consider modifying the graphic EQ to show two sampled EQ's; a previously sampled file as well as the one currently being edited? I'm not a programmer, but, it doesn't seem to be that big of a project.

Thanks again Jim,
Stephen

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

I bought Ozone about 3 weeks ago, but haven't really had a chance to delve off into it much. I didn't even realize that you could match E.Q. settings, but that is definitely something I intend on trying when I get home! Thanks Jim!! Smile

Syntrillium M.D. · Location: USA Posts: 5124

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

I don't really want to be the party-pooper, but there have been a few issues raised about M-audio Studiophiles before. The word on the street is that their mixes don't translate too well. This is mentioned 'ummmmonitors?', and there are a few other threads that have mentioned it too. Also, a source of reviews that we trust has this to say about them...

Ozone is fine - there are no problems with it at all from an EQ point of view - it can actually make some pretty subtle changes. And you can use CEP2.0 spectrum analyser as a way of comparing EQ results very easily - those 4 buttons in the top RH corner will 'freeze' a copy of the display, which will be held as long as the window remains open. Synt doesn't need to modify this at all!

But back to your problem, SJM. Have you optimised the acoustics in your room? This can make a significant difference to the results that you will get. I believe that it may be possible to get better results from Studiophiles, but I suspect that you will have to position them carefully, and optimise the room, and your listening position as well. The only problem is that is sounds as though they might have to be put right into the corners in order to extend the bass response, and generally this is not a good thing to do in most rooms, because you stand a good chance of exciting the room modes rather more easily than you would otherwise.

SteveG · Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695

Hah! Synt got there first with the snapshot windows! (just...)

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Thanks for the "insider" info Synt! Actually, I haven't tried either, (as I alluded to) but I had seen reference to the FreeFilter several times and thought it could possibly be put to use. But, if it's crap.... thanks for saving me a few $$$$! Smile

ozpeter · Location: Australia Posts: 3200

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Unless I misunderstood the "FreeFilter's" capabilities..... I think what it's supposed to do is allow you to load file and run the "filter", which takes a profile and allows you to apply that profile on another file.

Graeme · Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663

Unless I have totally misunderstood what I read about 'freefilter', it seems to me to fall into the same camp as mic modelling software - it will likely change the sound, but not to what you have been led to believe by the suppliers.

All this software can do is to measure the energy at a number of points across the spectrum. This will produce a curve representing that energy spread - but this has nothing whatever to do with the EQ which was applied (if any) during the production of the original piece. In turn, any EQ changes which were made to the original, would have been highly dependant on the content and bear no relationship to another track.

I fail to understand how one is supposed to be able to use this curve on material of, almost certainly, different content and achieve the same 'sound' as the original. I have no doubt it will change the sound, but it won't make your record sound the same as someone else has achieved, anymore than a mic modeler can make a Shure sound like a Schoeps.

It all smacks of black magic to me.

AndyH · Posts: 1425

This probably doesn't apply to most situtations, Graeme, but if one knows what the pre-EQ track sounded like, won't this tool be useful to understand what what done to get it to sound the way it does now? That could be a very useful learning tool, if nothing else.

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

I was looking to the "FreeFilter" with one particular purpose in mind. I could care less about "copying" someone's mix. I wanted to have the capability to apply it to MY OWN tracks.... example: I record a guitar track (doesn't matter if its clean/dist)... a couple of weeks later, I set amps and mics up to achieve the same sound for another project. Something doesn't quite sound the same and no amount of "tweeking" pulls the sound in. It would be cool to be able to go back to "known" sound that I wanted, scan it and apply it to the one I am working on presently. To each his/her own. Smile

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

Isn't that basically what Tom Scholtz did when he designed those little guitar distortion boxes? Of course, he had access to genuine engineering tools: he reportedly used a Polaroid camera to take photos of the frequency analyzer screen when he found a really cool guitar sound. Then he would tinker with the circuitry of his box until the frequency analyzer display was the same as the photo.
But Steve has it right, I think: no EQ in the world will magically make something sound good if you haven't done the groundwork by setting up a decent monitoring system in the first place.
John Big Grin

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

I didn't realize that Scholtz employed that method.... cool! And, I can definitely see where someone trying to make their wimpy mix sound like Aerosmith is in for a rude awakening. I do think that for my intents and purposes that this application should be viable!

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

Good morning, Mr VooDoo. You're up early (it's 6:45 Texas Standard Time). Maybe that Allen-Heath RTA would be the way to go. You could feed it a guitar signal. I have looked at the frequency analyzer on the CEP edit view but it moves too fast (my stepson told me that the f.a. display and some drugs would have kept him at the computer screen by the hour in his high school days Shock

) but obviously the concept is sound. This is a little far afield from the original question, however. Guitar sounds have the distinct advantage in being much simpler than the whole mix.
J

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Top O' the Morning to you sir!! :)

Yes, it is early, and I've been up since 02:55. I am a shift worker (4 on/4 off). When working days... (which I presently am) I arise at the ripe chronometer setting of 02:55. Nights (referred to as "Graveyards" by us shifies) are alot more forgiving. Been doing this for going on 16 years and hopefully will do @ 4 more and hand off the ball!

lpdeluxe · Posts: 59

I once worked for several years as a relief, doing any combination of days, swing, and graveyard each week. Never discovered whether I was coming or going....
J

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Well then, your well versed on the "beast" that is shiftwork!

post78 · Location: USA Posts: 2887

At one job I was graveyard, and I loved it. I'm a night person anyway, and it's too cold at night to do anything fun, so I might as well make some money.

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Actually, I too prefer nights for various reasons. The facility that I work in employs @ 300 people. During Monday thru Friday, they are there in all their glory! However, at night and on weekends, there are 16 people manning the consoles and field areas. I just got off a 10 day straight (daylight) run. It sucked, but 2 of the days were holiday's and overtime (double time!). I guess I'll have to make a Guitar Center run. Smile

post78 · Location: USA Posts: 2887

That's actually a very unnerving feeling: Having to work a few day shifts after months (or even just weeks) of nights. You suddenly feel less important for the reasons you specified (lots more people!) and it's as if you're at a new and unfamiliar job. Dead

VoodooRadio · Location: USA Posts: 3971

Yea, it's really odd how people are clannish! We have 4 shift's and with the exception of working Overtime, your always working with your same "core" group. Each shift thinks that "theirs is the best" and that the others are incapable. When working overtime, you end up working with people that (depending on what role your filling) you may not have seen in over a year.

SJM · Posts: 78

Greetings,
Getting back to the EQ matching thing...
I stumbled upon a plugin from Arboretum called Ionizer. One of the it's functions is "Frequency Morph". The description of this function seems to be just what I was looking for. (No I wasn't asking for a "One Button - Hit Maker". Just some help in the EQ end.) Problem is, it costs $500.00!! Guess I can do without. Anyway, take a look: http://www.arboretum.com/S20_products/S23_ionizer/S232aWININFO.html

Best to you,
Stephen

oretez · Posts: 181

'free filter' is not an acoustic modeler. While it's useful for a number of things it can, nor was it designed to allow you to seamlessly match the subject 'sound' of non congruent material

Assuming that original poster achieves a mix with which they are satisfied in the 'mix environment' that then fails to satisfy on a variety of deliver systems suggests that the problem is in the mix environment.

In some ways it seems anti intuitive but, metaphorically at least, it's far better to be disatisfied with the 'mix environment' sound (of a specific tune) and find that it plays well on deliver systems than the other way around.

Evidence that the environment needs to be adjusted is the post itself. Definately move speakers away from walls, reexamine stratagy for bass trap (standing waves you create at the low end generate harmonics across the entire spectrum). Small rooms are always going to be problematic for creating satisfying 'universal' mixes. Space, even if filled with R10 fiberglass house insulation, between inner and outer walls can create disagreable resonate spikes.

One of the first things to examine closely, after getting moniters away from the walls; particularly if you are using the one man, one track at a time approach to recording, is phase coherence. Correcting even small preturbations can have significant impact on improving clarity, 'punch' of the end sound ('punch' of course being a very narrowly defined wave equation, details for digitally manipulation of which can be found in any beginning primer).

While I used various 'sonic maximizers' when my delivery medium was cassette tape I haven't been a big fan in the digital domain. But you might find them useful to enhance the overtone spectrum that sounds 'good' to you.

People being who they are once we get equipment set in certain locations, while intellectually we might realize the arrange was a result of compromise, we get comfortable with it and it does not seem profitable to move it around. But this is actually cheapest place to start. Move stuff around, see if it has any impact on your end results. What your ears learn in this process can ultimately be more valuable that simply refining the acoustic ergonomics.

(free filter, by the way, can be fairly useful for providing a quantitative snapshot of what you're doing wrong. It is less useful in helping you fix that stuff)