On 2004-10-20 23:52:57 +0200,
[email protected] (Paavo Jumppanen) said:
> I'd agree that there is a lot more to a good mix than just spectral
> balance but the area that is most commonly stuffed up in music
> recordings is the spectral balance, and if you think about it there
> are very good reasons for this.
I don't agree. I think the use of too may effects like reverb, cheap
equipment (or using too many of the free effects plug ins on the
software side) and poor placement of instruments in a mix is about as
popular as spectral imbalance (to borrow the subject line of another
topic). To quote a former employee of a German audio software company
recently sold to a video company "the fact that you can purchase a
hammer in a store doesn't mean that you can successfully build your own
house". IOW: even if you have access to the same tools as the "pros" it
doesn't mean your mix will sound that way. That's the primary reason
why bad mixes exist in the first place, and it accounts for 90% of the
income of mastering facilities (I know because I used to work for one).
> Another issue is the prevalence of multiband compression in popular
> recordings these days. I've got so many that simply sound bad because
> of compression artifacts. It would appear that much of the problem
> comes from a particular portion of the spectrum dominating and hence
> preferentially being compressed more by multiband compressors,
> resulting in strong changes in instrument colour with time. If the
> balance is more uniform to start off with these side effects don't
> seem to be as pronounced. That being as it may, I wouldn't be
> dissappointed if multiband compression vanished tommorrow but it seems
> to be entrenched in the industry today.
Yes, that's indeed the case. Since the appearance of a very popular MBC
device made by a danish company and its success in the 1990s things
have become a lot worse than before, when only a few engineers had such
a device at their disposal. But we've seen this type of misuse before:
in the 1980s, people came to the mastering facility with tapes or DATs
that were almost unusable due to excessive use of exciters and stereo
width enhancers. In the 1990s the multiband compression era began, and
now it appears we're still right in the middle of the pitch
quantization decade. Of course you could point your finger at me saying
that because I'm working at a company involved in developing these
devices I am partly responsible for this, too (and I wouldn't
disagree), but it's always a problem with people using and mis-using
things. But if it's any comfort, I can hardly turn on the radio these
days without hurting my ears from all the artifacts and effects - if
you're into developing this stuff you tend to develop a
hypersensitivity to them. :-)
MBC, if used correctly, does balance the overall spectral shape of a
recording and makes it sound more pleasant. However, it can easily
squeeze the life out of a recording, too. If I understand correctly,
your device balances the overall spectrum without that disadvantage
because it's an EQ and not a dynamics compressor. The snake oil smell
probably comes from people who fell for the marketing of matched
filtering devices and software that claims to accurately model
microphones, or to transfer the sound of one mix to another. This is a
dangerous claim because in most cases the trick won't work right and
people are disappointed.
For you, that's just tough luck I think...
--
Stephan M. Bernsee
http://www.dspdimension.com