![]() ![]() Interestingly, broadcasters used at least two other efforts at creating loudness: introducing a peak at 2.5 kHz (or thereabout) – and various methods of speeding up the turntables (did you ever wonder why you kept finding bottles of liquid paper in the Control Room)! None really required actual processors. Cutting for too much loudness resulted in either the record would skip or run out of playing time. As they tried to make the loudest record in the juke boxes, they needed some way to reduce the excursions from the base line that made it hard to control the cutting lathe. First TakesĮarly experimentation started in the recording industry.Īs rock and roll – and 45 rpm discs – took over record companies had a problem. Perhaps you, dear reader, are one of those. ![]() The pioneers who have led the way were usually an engineer or programmer seeking a different sound – to the point of obsession. And stations work hard to grab the attention of their listeners, using jingles, sounders, and a distinctive sound. However, that began to change, rapidly – and in a big way. A New Player: Multiband Audioīefore the 1970s, most audio limiters and processors came from the big companies: RCA, Western Electric, General Electric, and CBS. For years, artists had to be content that their songs were being played – and hoped they sold well in the record stores. Unfortunately, the bargain was audio sounding somewhat flat and subject to nasty side-effects from the processor. The dynamic range is purposely reduced and peaks are clipped off, losing much of the “openness” and detail of a work.Īt the same time, audio processing can make stations much louder – and the reduced dynamic range makes it easier to listen in cars. On one hand, audio processing can be contrary to the way artists would like to see their music presented. I get to help finish it off as a tribute to a great radio engineer. As before, Jim Somich took the lead on this guided tour. We were both involved with the multiband processors that gave radio a loud, clean voice in the 70s and 80s, and we had watched the changes over the years. Before his untimely death, Jim Somich and I had a number of conversations by phone and email as we discussed the history of broadcast audio processing and laid the basis for these articles. Richard Haskey's: The Worst I've Ever Seen!.Overall, Xfilter is geared toward current music production practices and is also available in a 500-series module, a rack-mountable unit, and a mastering edition. It provides two parametric peaking filter bands with narrow Q switches and two shelving filters with resonant cut switches.Īll four bands are active, but there is an additional passive filter for adding a gentle high-frequency shine at 12 kHz. The Elysia Xfilter Qube offers an affordable solution for adding an extremely high-quality parametric EQ stage onto your mix bus. While some parametric EQ designs are based on well-known classics, others might borrow a feature or two with the aim to innovate and create a tool more relevant in the context of modern audio production. Choosing the best stereo EQ for mixing and mastering To have the best of both worlds, mastering studios are often equipped with both character-inducing and more transparent types of EQs, so keep in mind the style of music you’re working with. ![]() Like preamps, you will often be confronted with the choice of clean transformerless designs or those that offer classic topologies with transformer or tube saturation. It’s also available in formats like 500-series, which is more compact and even offers portability for live sound environments. Hardware of this nature is not cheap, but it’s still far more affordable than the original vintage designs from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |