Dynamics

[JackA]

To Chris: I don't want you to give away any propitiatory information, but on a layman's level, can you give me a clue what the "Amplify Light" does under Effect > Dynamics?

Why I ask, it can turn some dull sounding early CDs into impressive sounding.
It's one feature I'd pay an arm and a leg for!

Thank you.

[DougDbug]

The graph shows you what it's doing, so nothing propitiatory...

The X-axis (horizontal) is the input (or before) and the Y-axis (vertical) is the output (or after). It's a sample-by-sample operation (i.e. 44,100 samples per second for CD audio).

A straight line is normal amplification or attenuation. A straight line at 45 degrees does nothing (the amplification factor is 1.0 and the output is the same as the input). 0 in the middle is silence and the the positive & negative values are where the waveform goes positive & negative.

can you give me a clue what the "Amplify Light" does...

For quieter sounds (and the lower part of the waveform) the sound is amplified... 0.4 (40%) gets amplified to 0.6 (60%). The "louder" parts of the waveform are attenuated (relative to to the boosted lower-level signals).

This is type of dynamic compression with the quiet parts made louder and/or the loud parts quieter. Almost all commercial recordings are compressed to some extent.

Normal compression has an attack-time & release time. The Dynamics effect is instant. Limiting is (usually*) instant but it would show-up as curves on the graph where the curve becomes flat the top & bottom limits, meaning that the output never goes above the limit no matter how "loud" the input gets.

Compression (and limiting) are the main "weapons" in the Loudness War and it's a big part of the "modern sound". The can be a good thing if you like the modern constantly-loud style but it can be a bad thing if you enjoy musical dynamic contrast.



* Some limiters will "look ahead" in the digital file so the wave can be attenuated without changing the wave shape.

[JackA]

The graph shows you what it's doing, so nothing propitiatory...

The X-axis (horizontal) is the input (or before) and the Y-axis (vertical) is the output (or after). It's a sample-by-sample operation (i.e. 44,100 samples per second for CD audio).

A straight line is normal amplification or attenuation. A straight line at 45 degrees does nothing (the amplification factor is 1.0 and the output is the same as the input). 0 in the middle is silence and the the positive & negative values are where the waveform goes positive & negative.

can you give me a clue what the "Amplify Light" does...

For quieter sounds (and the lower part of the waveform) the sound is amplified... 0.4 (40%) gets amplified to 0.6 (60%). The "louder" parts of the waveform are attenuated (relative to to the boosted lower-level signals).

This is type of dynamic compression with the quiet parts made louder and/or the loud parts quieter. Almost all commercial recordings are compressed to some extent.

Normal compression has an attack-time & release time. The Dynamics effect is instant. Limiting is (usually*) instant but it would show-up as curves on the graph where the curve becomes flat the top & bottom limits, meaning that the output never goes above the limit no matter how "loud" the input gets.

Compression (and limiting) are the main "weapons" in the Loudness War and it's a big part of the "modern sound". The can be a good thing if you like the modern constantly-loud style but it can be a bad thing if you enjoy musical dynamic contrast.



* Some limiters will "look ahead" in the digital file so the wave can be attenuated without changing the wave shape.

Doug, thank you much for the explanation. You should have written the Goldwave Help
Yes, there are time where I needed a tad less than "light", but never got around to modify the dots.

I'm GUESSING you can manually do what this "Light Amplify" does, but it would take a lot longer. I mean, if audio is not strong enough for me, I go Peak hunting, and trim them, to raise RMS value. Why I never did like "audiophile" material, they preserve too many "Peaks". Peaks, especially one or two, do nothing for audio (in my opinion). Like, when I mix multi-tracks, then import into Goldwave, and "see" the ill results. Sometimes, just using the Light Amplify fixes the problem.

Yeah, I heard of Loudness Wars, but to may ears, it started decades ago. Just better managed in the digital world. Felt these DAWs (I prefer DAS = Digital Audio Software) is to blame for loudness wars. Because, decades back, I'd play a new vinyl 45 and wondered why when the song was fading, the fidelity improved! Why, a lot of early CDs sounded dull, lifeless, compared to vinyl counterparts (we agree).

Also, what changes is detailed sound. If I can limit the peaks, while automatically raising the weaker sound, greater detail can be offered. Something that I don't feel you'll ever achieve by turning up the volume knob as some claim.

But some who are crying about Loudness Wars, like Bob Ludwig, remasters John Cougar so it hurts my ears! Who are they joking?!

Anyway, I just find it fun toying with audio work, just so I can shape the sound as I enjoy it. Sadly, like Stereo fanatic, not many, maybe 15% are into "impressive" sounding audio.

And I'm glad I jumped on the Goldwave bandwagon, it blew my mind to find Pro Tools (is that a curse word here?) was initially $6000 in 1991!!

Oh, last question: Does the more recent versions of Goldwave have anything to help "center" vocals in Stereo mixes? If not too bad, I can just shift L or R track a minute amount, not an ideal way, adds a touch of echo. I really enjoyed Chris' "Stereo Center", helps song where "center" is too weak!!

Thanks, Doug!!

[DougDbug]

I'm GUESSING you can manually do what this "Light Amplify" does, but it would take a lot longer. I mean, if audio is not strong enough for me, I go Peak hunting, and trim them, to raise RMS value. Why I never did like "audiophile" material, they preserve too many "Peaks"...

You might try the Compressor/Expander with the Reduce Peaks preset. Then, you can Maximize to bring-up the overall-average volume.

I don't do this kind of thing much, but I think Audacity's new Limiter (with the hard-limit option) may do a better job. It was improved recently and it's better than the old Audacity limiter which seemed to be a "hard clipper".

Oh, last question: Does the more recent versions of Goldwave have anything to help "center" vocals in Stereo mixes?

With Stereo -> Channel Mixer you can blend the left & right channels and that pushes everything toward the center. (If you blend completely you get mono.)

I can just shift L or R track a minute amount, not an ideal way, adds a touch of echo.

You shouldn't need so much delay that you hear an echo. It's called the Hass Effect.

Because, decades back, I'd play a new vinyl 45 and wondered why when the song was fading, the fidelity improved! Why, a lot of early CDs sounded dull compared, lifeless, to vinyl counterparts (we agree).

Most 45s sounded terrible. I've read that they were usually highly-compressed and cut as loud as possible and that they often used "regrind" vinyl. LPs were better but most were mediocre and only once in awhile you'd run across a great sounding one. The "snap", "crackle" and "pop" always drove me nuts and my records always seemed to get scratched even though I tried to take care of them.

So, I had the opposite reaction to early CDs... I got my first CD player and I was blown-away by the clarity and the dead-silent background. I never bought another record.

And I'm glad I jumped on the Goldwave bandwagon, it blew my mind to find Pro Tools (is that a curse word here?) was initially $6000 in 1991!!

Me too!!! I wasn't aware of Pro Tools at the time but there were a couple of other options and for me it was a choice between GoldWave and Cool Edit. I chose GoldWave because you had to pay extra for Cool Edit Pro and GoldWave came "complete" at one low price. That was one of the best decisions I've ever made!

[JackA]

I'm GUESSING you can manually do what this "Light Amplify" does, but it would take a lot longer. I mean, if audio is not strong enough for me, I go Peak hunting, and trim them, to raise RMS value. Why I never did like "audiophile" material, they preserve too many "Peaks"...

You might try the Compressor/Expander with the Reduce Peaks preset. Then, you can Maximize to bring-up the overall-average volume.

I don't do this kind of thing much, but I think Audacity's new Limiter (with the hard-limit option) may do a better job. It was improved recently and it's better than the old Audacity limiter which seemed to be a "hard clipper".

Oh, last question: Does the more recent versions of Goldwave have anything to help "center" vocals in Stereo mixes?

With Stereo -> Channel Mixer you can blend the left & right channels and that pushes everything toward the center. (If you blend completely you get mono.)

I can just shift L or R track a minute amount, not an ideal way, adds a touch of echo.

You shouldn't need so much delay that you hear an echo. It's called the Hass Effect.

Because, decades back, I'd play a new vinyl 45 and wondered why when the song was fading, the fidelity improved! Why, a lot of early CDs sounded dull compared, lifeless, to vinyl counterparts (we agree).

Most 45s sounded terrible. I've read that they were usually highly-compressed and cut as loud as possible and that they often used "regrind" vinyl. LPs were better but most were mediocre and only once in awhile you'd run across a great sounding one. The "snap", "crackle" and "pop" always drove me nuts and my records always seemed to get scratched even though I tried to take care of them.

So, I had the opposite reaction to early CDs... I got my first CD player and I was blown-away by the clarity and the dead-silent background. I never bought another record.

And I'm glad I jumped on the Goldwave bandwagon, it blew my mind to find Pro Tools (is that a curse word here?) was initially $6000 in 1991!!

Me too!!! I wasn't aware of Pro Tools at the time but there were a couple of other options and for me it was a choice between GoldWave and Cool Edit. I chose GoldWave because you had to pay extra for Cool Edit Pro and GoldWave came "complete" at one low price. That was one of the best decisions I've ever made!

"The "snap", "crackle" and "pop" always drove me nuts"...

My long lost brother!!
Thanks, Doug for the Hass info and all.
All I can add is, I don't ever believe I had Goldwave crash!! Very stable.
When MP3's began to surface, when everyone looked at you funny about an MP3, a young friend in WI suggested Goldwave!

Thanks, again, be well.

Jack

[JackA]

Here's an "Amplify Light" example. Out-Take #7 of a big 1959 hit (I love Big Bands)...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... ife-7s.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/i ... ife-7s.mp3

I first L@@K at the waveform, this alone tells me if an Amplify Light move is beneficial. Many an (early) CD looked like the audio had no pulse, with its EKG (ECG). Once finished, I check DC offset, even check Varying Offset, sometimes watch the (portions of) waveform jump (nice one, Chris!)! Then I create a 160kbps MP3 an open it in an old copy of WinAmp. Then I check what bands of frequencies are beneficial increasing or attenuating (via its Equalizer). I then incorporate these band changes into Goldwave, and Maximize audio. Sometimes, the entire waveform drops (envelope) and if I don't "see" any harm in doing so, I begin Trimming Peaks. I reiterate over and over until I'm happy with the results; I desire robust audio.

Using an older version of GW. No RSVP.

Jack

[DewDude420]

I'll just say this on dynamics and older CDs:

Older CD's usually have more dynamics, even though they were sometimes sampled with those kind of lousy 80's ADCs. The reasoning for this is basically...they didn't have the ability to tightly control volume levels using things like digital limiters. All of that stuff had to be done in the analog chain. No, the loudness war isn't new; but like was stated...this existed back in the 50s and 60s. I hear stuff from the 70s that I immedately say "this is overcompressed."

The differences is the compressors weren't nearly as hard as we can make them. You can make a filter in digital that'll completely brickwall at 0dbFS with 20dB of gain...no problem. The analog technology was more limited...so while the stuff is over-limited...it's no where near as hard as now. And if it was...it's been run through several analog compression stages and sounds like crap...on the master tape.

So older CD's weren't run through any software. Typically what they did was the digitized the original analog tape to digital setting 0VU on the tape meter to correspond to something like -18dbFS. This was done because VU is a bit of an average level..and it wasn't uncommon for a tape level to spike way above 0VU without really saturating the tape. So it was done for headroom.

This is why older CD's have a much lower RMS level.

I wish I could tell you more "Standard" descriptions of some of the GW settings for dynamics; these days I speak in terms of threshold, ratio, attack and release times, but amplify light i think is something around a 1.5:1 ratio with a threshold I'm not sure of. It's subtle...but it's still compression.

Jack: Your attempts to "mastering" for 160kbps mp3 really need to be done carefully. There's a reason it attenuates the frequencies it does; and trying to brute-force them back in makes for very inefficient compression with more artifacting than what might normally happen. That's not to say you can't optimize/master for a lossy format; but you have to be gentle.

The thing I've learned in the 18 years I've been doing audio....is that you can't brute force because it's digital; you *still* have to take those easy baby steps. I can sometimes get the desired effect with one plugin; but sometimes running two less aggressive plugins gets the job done with less harshness to it.

It's like noise reduction; I don't do single-pass noise reduction anymore. I typically spend the time to do 20 or 30 passes reducing noise by just a couple of dB each pass. It's time consuming; but it's yielded some excellent results.

Now...on the subject of "blending" or doing anything that is or resembles downmixing to mono; be aware that this can actually screw up the mixing of the track. When you sum two channels together, any audio that was in-phase between the channels literally adds up, becoming twice it's original amplitude. Summing channels really brings those vocals out; but it can also bring them out "too much" since they'll wind up 6dbFS louder than originally intended. I recently started the groundwork for a program of music I'm going to have broadcasted by a time-brokered shortwave station; I'm actually pre-downmixing most of my tracks for a show since I often have to apply some processing to prevent "center-channel build-up".

This mostly amounts to either applying a 120 degree phase shift to one channel, there will be a partial cancellation due to phase difference with center content and it will attenuate the correct amount. I've also been playing with a more processor-intensive version that isolates the "center channel" and allows me to drop it 6dB. That gives me a bit more freedom to focus on *just* the vocals. Of course, I'm doing this in entirely different software that I've been learning.

On the term of digital audio workstation...that's a throwback to the 70's when Soundstream developed what was literally a digital audio workstation. So...for many years; what we can do now in software, required a literal console workstation. The term has just kind of stuck with the switch to software.

Technically speaking, Goldwave is a a Digital Audio Editor. Workstations usually include functions like mixing and limited mastering; and don't always include editing. Not to mention in professional environments; you still have that full workstation setup with massive mixers and everything...despite the fact it's all just a fancy interface for some software.

DAS works...but DAW has kind of established itself as standard.

[JackA]

I'll just say this on dynamics and older CDs:

Older CD's usually have more dynamics, even though they were sometimes sampled with those kind of lousy 80's ADCs. The reasoning for this is basically...they didn't have the ability to tightly control volume levels using things like digital limiters. All of that stuff had to be done in the analog chain. No, the loudness war isn't new; but like was stated...this existed back in the 50s and 60s. I hear stuff from the 70s that I immedately say "this is overcompressed."

The differences is the compressors weren't nearly as hard as we can make them. You can make a filter in digital that'll completely brickwall at 0dbFS with 20dB of gain...no problem. The analog technology was more limited...so while the stuff is over-limited...it's no where near as hard as now. And if it was...it's been run through several analog compression stages and sounds like crap...on the master tape.

So older CD's weren't run through any software. Typically what they did was the digitized the original analog tape to digital setting 0VU on the tape meter to correspond to something like -18dbFS. This was done because VU is a bit of an average level..and it wasn't uncommon for a tape level to spike way above 0VU without really saturating the tape. So it was done for headroom.

This is why older CD's have a much lower RMS level.

I wish I could tell you more "Standard" descriptions of some of the GW settings for dynamics; these days I speak in terms of threshold, ratio, attack and release times, but amplify light i think is something around a 1.5:1 ratio with a threshold I'm not sure of. It's subtle...but it's still compression.

Jack: Your attempts to "mastering" for 160kbps mp3 really need to be done carefully. There's a reason it attenuates the frequencies it does; and trying to brute-force them back in makes for very inefficient compression with more artifacting than what might normally happen. That's not to say you can't optimize/master for a lossy format; but you have to be gentle.

The thing I've learned in the 18 years I've been doing audio....is that you can't brute force because it's digital; you *still* have to take those easy baby steps. I can sometimes get the desired effect with one plugin; but sometimes running two less aggressive plugins gets the job done with less harshness to it.

It's like noise reduction; I don't do single-pass noise reduction anymore. I typically spend the time to do 20 or 30 passes reducing noise by just a couple of dB each pass. It's time consuming; but it's yielded some excellent results.

Now...on the subject of "blending" or doing anything that is or resembles downmixing to mono; be aware that this can actually screw up the mixing of the track. When you sum two channels together, any audio that was in-phase between the channels literally adds up, becoming twice it's original amplitude. Summing channels really brings those vocals out; but it can also bring them out "too much" since they'll wind up 6dbFS louder than originally intended. I recently started the groundwork for a program of music I'm going to have broadcasted by a time-brokered shortwave station; I'm actually pre-downmixing most of my tracks for a show since I often have to apply some processing to prevent "center-channel build-up".

This mostly amounts to either applying a 120 degree phase shift to one channel, there will be a partial cancellation due to phase difference with center content and it will attenuate the correct amount. I've also been playing with a more processor-intensive version that isolates the "center channel" and allows me to drop it 6dB. That gives me a bit more freedom to focus on *just* the vocals. Of course, I'm doing this in entirely different software that I've been learning.

On the term of digital audio workstation...that's a throwback to the 70's when Soundstream developed what was literally a digital audio workstation. So...for many years; what we can do now in software, required a literal console workstation. The term has just kind of stuck with the switch to software.

Technically speaking, Goldwave is a a Digital Audio Editor. Workstations usually include functions like mixing and limited mastering; and don't always include editing. Not to mention in professional environments; you still have that full workstation setup with massive mixers and everything...despite the fact it's all just a fancy interface for some software.

DAS works...but DAW has kind of established itself as standard.

Doug, I appreciate your input, and thank you for agreeing about software not making a total Workstation.

I do all this audio work for fun, nothing of professional level. Heck, I even work (source) with 256k or 320k MP3 files to "enhance". Certainly, not a professional maneuver.

Things I discovered during writing about CD sound. For example, Capitol Records discarded/replaced a lot of analog, I guess, sound enhancing equipment, rendering mastering notes useless. Feel "man" had a much greater amount of audio enhancing equipment in the pure analog days than those who initially (re)mastered for CD. Some songs sound wimpy, since compression was not used. I am still unsure the processes of "mastering", some say audio touching was involved from what was "mixed".

Later, I found a dead site that mentions a couple Sony PWM machines commonly used for CD (back then). You could have a "hot" mix or a non hot mix. In other words, there were no standards with even that, if you follow me. Even Sony claimed, a few lost bits (out of 65k) aren't going to harm audio (for greater amplitude). I just play these CD songs and find lack of bass and treble or whatever, from what I personally experienced on vinyl. I was highly disappointed with songs on CD compared to what I divorced on vinyl records. That is when that Light Amplification made me a believer in digital audio sound. I used to be angered from FM Stereo radio, they got different stereo mixes!! Only to find they "enhance" their audio, sometimes adding a nice touch to limited stereo mixes. Guess it was initially done, since stereo FM transmission lacked the stereo separation of LPs. I agree with you about too "harsh" sound, I sometimes go overboard myself.

For me, it is sometimes scary what you discover with Amplification, you hear sounds you never heard before! It's like what CD audio should be, I feel. I found an favorite Pablo Cruise song (low bit MP3), sounded nice, but I wanted the CD. Could never guarantee what I'd purchase on CD was like this MP3. Universal Music later issued the album on one of their fancy high quality material CDs. It sounded the same, looked the same, as the earlier MP3 I had. But, enhance and it comes to life (had the vinyl LP), big time.

People ignore me, Doug, that alone gives me a sign I'm doing some audio good. THEY even claim I don't reveal what I'm doing. I guess they feel I'm showing off. In Usenet, a Randy wanted me to hear his superior sounding Blood, Sweat & Tears song, as FLAC, to kick me in the nuts. I thanked Randy, I knew (vinyl) stereo single vs LP mixes were different. But I told Randy, he offered what I didn't want to hear, what I wanted to avoid, tape noise! Once in a blue moon, CD reviews amaze me, they yell, If You want the best sound, buy this CD! They were correct with the "Definitive" import Collection, no tape noise, even with amplification! I do know Sony has been offering Quad mixes as ordinary stereo mix (Edgar Winter, etc.), since multi-tracks were lost or never obtained, and Quadraphonic (LP) demanded little from its mastered tape (few records pressed), leaving non spent Master tape sound.

I just stopped by here to grab your http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/princip ... _image/P2/

... link, I will give you credit, sir.

p.s. I know 160k MP3s aren't going to set the world on fire, I just do that rate to save web host space. I compare original MP3 (@ higher bit rate) to the 160k I created, to help ensure I haven't "destroyed" or "lost" anything. As I initially thought, EVERYONE demands stereo mixes. How wrong I was, just like HQ sound, about the same amount appreciate guesstimate, 15%. And it makes perfect sense to me.

p.p.s. Some of GW's early noise reduction caused interaction of stereo tracks (phasing), but Chris didn't need to tell me, he corrected it!

Best,
Jack

[DewDude420]

Doug, I appreciate your input, and thank you for agreeing about software not making a total Workstation.

Jack, I think you're confused. I'm not Doug, I'm Jay. I was probably a much more prolific poster 8 to 10 years ago than I am now...I have to admit I've jumped hobbies here and there. But since you quoted my whole post I'll assume you're (mostly) talking to me.

I do all this audio work for fun, nothing of professional level. Heck, I even work (source) with 256k or 320k MP3 files to "enhance". Certainly, not a professional maneuver.

Things I discovered during writing about CD sound. For example, Capitol Records discarded/replaced a lot of analog, I guess, sound enhancing equipment, rendering mastering notes useless. Feel "man" had a much greater amount of audio enhancing equipment in the pure analog days than those who initially (re)mastered for CD. Some songs sound wimpy, since compression was not used. I am still unsure the processes of "mastering", some say audio touching was involved from what was "mixed".

There's a very unpopular idea about mastering; we're technically not even doing it right. The original concept behind mastering was the engineer who cut a master disc. This somewhat dates back to the acoustical recording days; but it became more important when the switch was made to tape production/mastering and LP's were cut with equalization. The mastering engineer's job was to make sure what came out on disc sounded like what was on the tape. Cutting an LP is not an easy task; there are a lot of rules that have to be followed regarding dynamics, frequency range, and mixing.

With the switch to tape and CD distribution, as well as digital; you don't really need mastering. You don't specifically tweak what the mix engineer has done to make it work on the format. However, mastering is still necessary; as mixing engineers sometimes don't have a clue about equalization and sometimes are using studios that "color" the sound. Plus a good mastering engineer can really tweak things to bring some life out; but the idea is to keep what the mix engineer has already done. Stem Mastering is a bit of a new thing; in which mastering is done using pre-rendered stems; but that's a real fine line between mastering and mixing. It's good for cases where the drums sound wrong, but fixing the drums makes something else sound wrong.

I think if anything, we have a better control over the audio than we used to; it's just such precise control is being over used.

Later, I found a dead site that mentions a couple Sony PWM machines commonly used for CD (back then). You could have a "hot" mix or a non hot mix. In other words, there were no standards with even that, if you follow me. Even Sony claimed, a few lost bits (out of 65k) aren't going to harm audio (for greater amplitude). I just play these CD songs and find lack of bass and treble or whatever, from what I personally experienced on vinyl. I was highly disappointed with songs on CD compared to what I divorced on vinyl records. That is when that Light Amplification made me a believer in digital audio sound.

The one thing I will say first off about Light Amplification made things (I assume this is the context) sound more like vinyl; I can think of a couple reasons.

First of all; 16-bit audio has much more dynamic range than a vinyl LP....so mixes for LP were slightly compressed compared to the master; at least for standard non-audiophile releases. Audiophile releases tended to use as much dynamic range as possible; but they were also cut on higher quality equipment with 1000x more care than what the studios were pumping out to the masses. So applying a "little" dynamic compression makes it sound more like LP because it likely matches the original dynamic profile that was on the disc. You also have to take in to account your playback system; which can have a huge effect on the quality of your vinyl.

I have no clue on the Sony PWM machines. This is the first I'm actually hearing of it. I know Sony did some crazy stuff with digital audio back in the 70s...and I know they were quite the authority on it at one point. It wouldn't surprise me; but I see it being used as a recording format and not for major production. For starters, I don't think you can store PWM on say a hard disk; the only thing I know PWM for is motor control and Laserdiscs.

PDM, pulse density modulation; Sony has been doing that for decades. SACD was essentially just delta-sigma stored using PDM on a DVD. But even then...you can't work with those formats like you can PCM in an editor/DAW...so they were likely converted back to PCM at some point...or just forewent most mastering. It was probably an early studio mixing system...or perhaps used to digitize analog tapes.

Which, as I mentioned; there are cases where early CD's weren't even really mastered; they just transferred the tape to digital and cut a CD. Maybe they tweaked some levels, maybe they didn't.

I used to be angered from FM Stereo radio, they got different stereo mixes!! Only to find they "enhance" their audio, sometimes adding a nice touch to limited stereo mixes. Guess it was initially done, since stereo FM transmission lacked the stereo separation of LPs.

Heh, I was about to think "no, they didn't; they just use processing", but you got there. It's not that FM transmission lacked the stereo seperation; the MPX format itself is capable of perfect seperation. The problem lied in the MPX decoder circuits of early systems which may have suffered from crosstalk; combined with the fact the stereo information is the first to go in an FM transmission. It is actually a carrier supressed double-sideband sub-carrier contained within the main FM signal. At higher frequencies in an FM baseband, you're prone to more noise; and using an amplitude modulation method; you become sensitive to noise. That's probably a bit beyond most people's comprehension...and it'll lead to other confusing questions....so it's best to just skip over it. But the stereo signal was enhanced to get around early limitations. Not to mention you do want to optimize your audio for transmission, since your channel has to deal with all sorts of things you don't have to in most playback situations.

In Usenet, a Randy wanted me to hear his superior sounding Blood, Sweat & Tears song, as FLAC, to kick me in the nuts. I thanked Randy, I knew (vinyl) stereo single vs LP mixes were different. But I told Randy, he offered what I didn't want to hear, what I wanted to avoid, tape noise!

Haha. There have been some interesting remixes floating around Usenet. Have you ever heard "The Association's Greatest Hits! Improved!"? If you've got good rentention on your provider; give it a look and tell me what you think. I "may or may not" have done stuff to that album, and "may or may not" have found someone to "distribute it or not" on usenet.

But on the subject of tape noise; you can't avoid it. It's going to be on all older recordings sourced from tape. Sometimes it can boil down to maybe finding an original or at least earlier generation master. The problem with recordings that have no tape noise; I have to question if they did some noise reduction techniques or not. I try to avoid it unless it's really offensive, it is a destructive process. But it seems to have matured enough it's creeping up in more modern professional work; I do know the HDTracks version of Paul McCartney & Wings' Band On The Run used "very light" noise reduction as they said so in the liner notes.

Sometimes I have to question if they went back to the sessions and just did a *really* good job of remixing it to match the original. The late 80's Astra releases of The Monkees were remixed from sessions; but when I've compared them to the original mixes.....I don't hear where the remixes are actually any worse...everything matches and it sounds cleaner. "Days of Future Passed" by Moody Blues was remixed entirely in 1978...and I much more prefer the LP mix. But let's face it...even though it's the original...it sounds bad. The original LP's don't sound good...the recently digitized master doesn't sound that great...I'm not sure if the tape was really cheap or if it was a bad mix.

I used to spend a lot of time playing with this stuff; doing what you're doing now...but on a much different level (Adobe Audition with tons of plugins)...but these days, not so much. I'll occasionally go "overboard" on a mix CD and "master" it so everything has the same tonal stage and volume.


-Jay

[JackA]

Jay, so sorry for referring to you as Doug. I guess my age is showing, beginning to worry me!

Thanks for the info!! Appreciate it!

Wish I could find that defunct "Mastering" site, that's where the two Sony machines were mentioned. Attempted to contact author, but e-mail dead.

I find all kinds of strange things. Like, The Grass Roots. from what I'm told, Dunhill tape material was discarded about the mid '70's. Yet, on a MCA Vintage Music CD series, you can find some Stereo remixing, with a lot less tape hiss noise (and extended endings) than found on many of the "hits" CDs. Some tell me these remixes surfaced on a ABC related vinyl LP, but not actually sure.

So, I digitally enhance those just so others know something unusual exists (some applauding recent Mono CD release).
Same with Rufus, multi-tracks surfaced via Harmonix Music Systems.

I'm told all kinds of stories about "Mastering" and "Remastering", but I believe you and I agree with what typically happened.
I find CDs, like EMI's, where one song is "loud" and the others too soft. I'm not sure what happened there, but I know EMI had to rectify the situation (Legendary Masters series), and recent MP3 paid downloads, now have them louder, even though that is not what is found on the initial published CD.

To most, they are just happy to hear their favorite songs on CD, while I wish to hear them as I believe they should sound, the sky is the limit. But, Digital Audio is all over the place (CD), and possibly the reason why vinyl LPs made a comeback.

Thank, Jay!!

Appended: I found a favorite Stereo song on CD, sounded better than on the vinyl album, but a momentary glitch in the audio bugged me. Luckily, the glitch was during a "mono" guitar part. I thought, hey, maybe I can copy the Left channel piece and use it to replace the defected piece in the Right channel. I knew how to Copy, but Paste it where. My attempts weren't pleasing and required even more work. But, right under my nose, all this time, was a "Replace" function under Edit drop-down menu. I selected just the Left channel, Copied the piece, then select the Right channel (automatically, identical selected portion, even though inactive) and Replace!
Would have liked to see the "Replace" grouped with Copy/Paste feature, probably why I missed it all these years. Anyway, a difficult chore simplified to less than a 1/2 minute! Thanks, Chris

Jack

Best,
Jack