The music industry is against me

Just what the name says.
damianm
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:46 am

Postby damianm » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:18 pm

Andreas wrote:Ears. :oops:

Try Normalize.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:22 pm

Normalize only matches peak levels. The average level -- which has far more influence on what we perceive as the 'loudness' -- can still be quite different when peaks are the same.

IMO the best is to use a method based on psychoacoustic models of level perception -- e.g. replaygain
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:03 pm

Here's my 5-minute assessment over "Pro-Luxe" headphones on a Mac - half-assed, but...

"Don't Be Cruel"
1 tinny
2 fatter bass, warmer, MUCH MORE natural vocals
3 bass thinner, vocals are tinny but less tinny than 1, same tape source as 1? maybe similar mastering moves?

"Heartbreak Hotel" - tough, none of them sound "great" but that's probably the way it was recorded...actually, once the bass kicks in and Elvis goes to the lower register, the differences become obvious
1 sounds 'okay'
2 where's the tape hiss? no top end too, is this NR?
3 i guess i prefer this one, on these headphones it sounds similar to 1 if not the same

"Hound Dog"
1 tinny side (bad EQ perhaps?)
2 warmer, more body, more natural, esp. around vocals
3 complete shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

"Teddy Bear"
1 pretty good
2 inferior source, reverb is dead giveaway, plus tinny and processed sounding
3 similar to 1, but I think 1 had a tiny boost in the 8k or top region

I may have provided some of these samples, but honest to God, didn't compare any with my own Elvis, which I ripped for my iPod
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:43 pm

krabapple wrote:IMO the best is to use a method based on psychoacoustic models of level perception -- e.g. replaygain


Haven't tried that, but using "peaks" in lower sections as a guide seems to work fairly well as well.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

damianm
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:46 am

Postby damianm » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:42 am

krabapple wrote:Normalize only matches peak levels. The average level -- which has far more influence on what we perceive as the 'loudness' -- can still be quite different when peaks are the same.

Actually Krab, the particular program I linked to above does RMS normalization, as opposed to peak.

from http://normalize.nongnu.org/README.html:
4. Why don't you normalize using peak levels instead of RMS amplitude?

Well, in early (unreleased) versions, this is how it worked. I found that this just didn't work well. The volume that your ear hears corresponds more closely with average RMS amplitude level than with peak level. Therefore, making the RMS amplitude of two files equal makes their perceived volume equal. (Approximately equal, anyway: certain frequencies sound louder at the same amplitude because the ear is just more sensitive to those frequencies. I may try to take this into account in a future version, but that opens up a whole new can of worms.)

"Normalizing" by peak level generally makes files with small dynamic range very loud and does nothing to files with large dynamic ranges. There's not really any normalization being done, it's more of a histogram expansion. That said, since version 0.5, you can use the --peak option to do this in normalize if you're sure it's what you really want to do.


I tried it on a comp I made last week and it did a fine job.

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:45 am

damianm wrote:I tried it on a comp I made last week and it did a fine job.


I am pretty sure that the mismatched levels were the actual reason for the thread removal on sh.tv. I'll try it next time.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:00 am

damianm wrote:
krabapple wrote:Normalize only matches peak levels. The average level -- which has far more influence on what we perceive as the 'loudness' -- can still be quite different when peaks are the same.

Actually Krab, the particular program I linked to above does RMS normalization, as opposed to peak.


My mistake, sorry. I didn't even realize that was a link. I was thinking of 'normalization' in the general sense, which is usual done for peaks by default, eg.g in Cool Edit.

(Approximately equal, anyway: certain frequencies sound louder at the same amplitude because the ear is just more sensitive to those frequencies. I may try to take this into account in a future version, but that opens up a whole new can of worms.)


That can has already been opened. Replaygain does take into account more htan RMS value. If I can remember to, I'll download the Elvis flacs and determine their replaygain values.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:29 am

I'd like to have a few more comments before I post the solution to the clips.

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:50 am

It's too tedious to do all of the clips -- each one requires decoding the flac,
loading the wav to Audition, splitting, saving, determining replaygain values,
reloading to Audition, applying rpg values, concatenating, resaving, reencoding to flac , then uploading to web server . So I've only done DOn't Be Cruel

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?a ... 681D32A606
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:18 am

Solutions:

Don't Be Cruel: Drake - Hoffman - Budd
Heartbreak Hotel: Hoffman - Drake - Budd
Hound Dog: Budd - Hoffman - Drake
Teddy Bear: Budd - Drake - Hoffman

In the cases of Heartbreak Hotel and Teddy Bear, it sounds as if Budd had better sources, but I still prefer the Hoffman versions. The Drake Hound Dog sounds like coming from an equalized copy. Other than that, I don't think the Drake versions are that bad; they are equalized more conservatively than Budd's.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:41 am

Andreas wrote:Hound Dog: Budd - Hoffman - Drake


What I figured. I'm inclined to say I prefer the Budd a bit, but then again, it's Elvis.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:31 pm

Shit, that was Dennis Drake? From the Time Life comps? I thought you were using some old, shitty RCA CD's that weren't approved by the other forum.

I mean they REALLY sound bad, go back to "Heartbreak Hotel" and give Drake's mastering another listen. Wait a bit until it's just the bass and Elvis singing really low. Crank it, it's been filtered or something 'cause there's NOTHING going on up there on the high end.

With "Hound Dog," it's Hoffman's. Like I said before, it's much more natural sounding. Say what you will about Hoffman, but his mastering still gives us some FINE sounding shit.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower



"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:11 pm

MK wrote:With "Hound Dog," it's Hoffman's. Like I said before, it's much more natural sounding. Say what you will about Hoffman, but his mastering still gives us some FINE sounding shit.


He's said he focuses on getting the vocals 'right', -- so with shitty recordings like this, where the vox are highlighted anyway, that's got to help.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant