All times are UTC+02:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2022 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:44 pm
Posts: 360
Location: Texas, USA
Since bands 3 and 4 of the AGC have no default setting, I'm curious what you guys like to use for them.

Currently, my bands are at 20, 250, 1000, and 15000 Hz
With crossovers landing approximately at 65, 500, and 4000 Hz

Ariane crossovers according to the manual are
Code:
hp filter (off/20Hz/30Hz/40Hz/50Hz/60Hz)
b1-2 xover freq (80Hz/100Hz/125Hz/160Hz/200Hz)
b2-3 xover freq (400Hz/500Hz/650Hz/800Hz/1000Hz)
b3-4 xover freq (1100Hz/1400Hz/1800Hz/2250Hz/2800Hz)
What do you guys think makes the best band settings?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2022 9:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:16 pm
Posts: 189
here is my 2-cent opinion:
the "current" AGC has too many options and configurations that if not adjusted properly, can significantly "change" the quality of the input sound which is then further amplified down the processing chain.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2022 7:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:44 pm
Posts: 360
Location: Texas, USA
That's pretty much why I started this thread. So many options, therefore this seemed the right place to start, as bands 3/4 are undefined when enabling them from a default setting. Band Control and Behavior would of course come later.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2022 10:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:16 pm
Posts: 189
if you ask me, i have compared extensively between the legacy agc and the current agc, i actually prefer the legacy agc (configured to match the source), i can hit bypass and the quality of the sound is 99% identical to the source except for only maintaining the agc output level at -6dB (peaks to 0dB), so if the source is -6dB, so is the agc output and both sound identical, that is what i prefer as an output to the processors that follow after it (makes sense).
additionally, i have noticed that some settings on current and legacy agc affect each other, i assumed that they were isolated from each other as far as functions and settings but i see im wrong about that.
for example, there is no window setting for the legacy (there used to be) but there is for the current, setting the window on the current applies to the legacy as well.
i found the same scenario applies to MB1, when using digital versus analog.
it seems many legacy modules are "connected" to the current ones.
no matter how i try (and i have spent a lot of time trying), i cannot get the current agc to match the same as the legacy, always the current agc does not sound identical to the source, band equalization, dynamics and peaks are changed.
the purpose of agc is meant to maintain the specified level and to achieve this without altering the properties of the source sound.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 3:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:44 pm
Posts: 360
Location: Texas, USA
Quote:
the purpose of agc is meant to maintain the specified level and to achieve this without altering the properties of the source sound.
See, I like the sound-shaping aspect of the multiband AGC. It keeps things sounding more consistent across different styles and formats without needing to use multiband compression.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 6:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:16 pm
Posts: 189
Quote:
Quote:
the purpose of agc is meant to maintain the specified level and to achieve this without altering the properties of the source sound.
See, I like the sound-shaping aspect of the multiband AGC. It keeps things sounding more consistent across different styles and formats without needing to use multiband compression.
i can agree with you but to a certain degree, because some musical titles are engineered and mastered a specific way for a specific sound and its not generally the greatest idea to alter/change too much of it otherwise it begins to sound "alienated".
using MB with 100% feedback on 9 bands alleviates the issue of altering the resulting sound too far by allowing a "boost" for those audio frequencies that are below the specified level that you set but not changing them that are above the specified level set.
the ending result is a cleaner, fuller and more vibrant sound that still retains the same engineering and mastering qualities and dynamics as the source.
this type of method can be tested over from MB to MB and the change is minimal to none, meaning if i save a tune processed in this manner as WAV and then play the tune through ST a second time, it wont be processed "double" since those resulting levels are already at the same specified level and MB ignores it.
i like to think of it as a "regulator" for audio frequencies in 9 bands.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2022 10:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:44 pm
Posts: 360
Location: Texas, USA
Quote:
because some musical titles are engineered and mastered a specific way for a specific sound and its not generally the greatest idea to alter/change too much of it otherwise it begins to sound "alienated".
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't personally think all audio masters sound especially good to my ears (taste and hearing curves being entirely subjective) and I enjoy being able to have control over how that's presented to me.

I've been reading around engineering subs on Reddit recently and man those folks think their masters are flawless. They've even tricked the masses into believing their interpretation of the music is 'the correct one'.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2022 5:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:16 pm
Posts: 189
Quote:
Quote:
because some musical titles are engineered and mastered a specific way for a specific sound and its not generally the greatest idea to alter/change too much of it otherwise it begins to sound "alienated".
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't personally think all audio masters sound especially good to my ears (taste and hearing curves being entirely subjective) and I enjoy being able to have control over how that's presented to me.

I've been reading around engineering subs on Reddit recently and man those folks think their masters are flawless. They've even tricked the masses into believing their interpretation of the music is 'the correct one'.
oh, i totally agree with you that all masters are very different from each other in composition, no doubt, many sound like sh1t and many sound good.
what i meant, was to only improve the "performance" of a poorly mastered track but keeping with its specific mastered "sound", meaning to keep the instrumentation/vocal loudness/density but to improve the performance of those frequencies used.
i suppose the best way to explain it, is to attach 2 short WAV examples, before and after since i have a lack of better words to properly explain the procedure.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC+02:00


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited