Taming resonances

[ore_terra]

1st - C-Vox Noise Reduction Plugin
2nd - SPL Transient Designer
3rd - Fabfilter Pro Q3 Equalizer set to a high-Q dynamic response on that resonant freq.
4th - Voxengo's TEOTE set to mastering, fluid response and flat EQ.

Just following the logic of that chain. Sounds rather smart! Sort of DIY soothe
What’s the TEOTE doing in the chain? I’m not familiar with that plugin

[Drew Stephenson]

I'd generally look at a dynamic EQ (TDR Nova is my choice) or a bit of Sound Theory's Gullfoss can do a good job.

[Drew Stephenson]

Can anyone identify the basic correction needed in terms of frequency, Q and decibels?

https://youtu.be/O3Jup5jpxaA

Not without downloading it and playing around for a while!
Trying to 'correct' an entire mix is a bit of a different kettle of fish to tackling a resonance in a specific track though.

[Tim Gillett]

Can anyone identify the basic correction needed in terms of frequency, Q and decibels?

https://youtu.be/O3Jup5jpxaA

Not without downloading it and playing around for a while!
Trying to 'correct' an entire mix is a bit of a different kettle of fish to tackling a resonance in a specific track though.

Well of course it requires a little work but for anyone with good listening skills, it should be obvious there's a harsh peak in the midrange, making listening unpleasant. With the great FFT spectral analysis tools around for decades now it's made so much easier too. We not only hear the problem but see it on the screen. I did the fix in under 5 minutes, which applies to the entire 3 hours or so of the still very popular surviving Dusty Springfield TV shows. But it seems one static EQ tweak of one midband of a mono soundtrack was too much for the relevent BBC audio remastering staff...

[apaclin]

I saw this video recently, where a dude uses eq in a linear phase and notches to reduce the resonances. So how does it combine when a guy has 3 grammies, but causes pre-ringing by doing that (linear phase + narrow qs)?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cWYfvkmfC1k

[Drew Stephenson]

Most audio tweakery is compromise, it's trying to find the one that delivers the best benefit whilst causing the least harm. This will vary from track to track depending on the composition, the recording, the room, the arrangement and everything else - it's why there really are no rules but plenty of guidelines and suggestions. And why most problems have multiple possible solutions.

[Hugh Robjohns]

But it seems one static EQ tweak of one midband of a mono soundtrack was too much for the relevent BBC audio remastering staff...

The video wasn't posted on YouTube from an official BBC source.... so who knows where it came from or what happened to it en route. But I'm sure we are all deeply impressed that your audio abilities are so far beyond everyone else's. Well done.

[Tim Gillett]

But it seems one static EQ tweak of one midband of a mono soundtrack was too much for the relevent BBC audio remastering staff...

The video wasn't posted on YouTube from an official BBC source.... so who knows where it came from or what happened to it en route...

The source I used was an official "Dusty Live at the BBC" DVD set but the YT source I cited here demonstrates the ugly mid range peak very well. Again, not a difficult or time consuming fix.

[sonics]

Do you use Soothe2 to tame resonances or do you tame them with equaliser, if so with dynamic bands or regular ones and why?

And what do you think about it in general?

Which resonances, exactly?

Resonances that typically need attending to would be things like room (for example a badly-recorded track) and vocal. I avoid fixating on that sort of thing when mixing music. Balancing sound for video and TV is another matter, and that's where I use more of the various tools to control frequency peaks.

I saw some crazy guy on YouTube slicing into a guitar track with lots of narrow cuts. That was endorsed by a very popular (and professional) audio YouTuber!

I use what's appropriate; sometimes surgical EQ, sometimes broad dynamic EQ moves, and sometimes specialised plugins. We should all make sure there's a problem before we go slapping Soothe on every track. Now that's a quick way to make bland-sounding music!

WRT the Dusty track, any engineer (esp live sound) worth their salt would be straight onto that nasal honk. If only improving the background singers were that easy!

[amanise]

But it seems one static EQ tweak of one midband of a mono soundtrack was too much for the relevent BBC audio remastering staff...

The video wasn't posted on YouTube from an official BBC source....

Go you Hugh! We just can't have them treating Aunty like this

[Hugh Robjohns]

Well... you know... facts are facts and I object to falsehoods, especially when presented with an unwarranted sense of superiority!

In the 60s the Beeb was using the Ampex Quadruplex format video recorders which ran 2-inch tape costing around £120 an hour (equivalent to about £2,500 a reel in todays money!)... So not surprisingly, the beeb wiped and reused those tapes routinely. That policy was still in place when I joined the Beeb in the 80s, and we were re-using each reel of 1-inch C-format video tape on average 5 times before it was scrapped. A programme had to be deemed extremely important to have the tape archived long-term.

It is a matter of record that the tapes from those BBC Dusty Springfield shows in 1966 and 67 (and I think 1969, too) were wiped — along with countless other shows and series along the way. Lost Dr Who and Dad's Army episodes were high profile examples. At the time, none of those shows were considered valuable enough to warrant long-term archiving of the tapes. Today, with a different perspective, those decisions may appear foolish but that's just the reality and practicality of way it was back then.

So... the 'Dusty at the BBC' DVD's referred to were actually produced and released by Universal — not the BBC — and created from recovered material obtained from private archives of home recordings. I've no idea what quality material Universal started with, but I'd be very surprised if they made it any worse, and in all likelihood they worked hard to make it as good as they could in the circumstances.

I'd say the sound on the YT presentation is seriously lacking bass rather than just having a mid-range hump — possibly to reduce recorded hum? — but we all listen with different ears.

A quick scan of some comments on Amazon reveals that many people have complained about the sound quality, although one I read suggested that "Those clips broadcast by the BBC were far more rounded and wholesome than these..." Presumably that commentator has a very good memory!

Anyway, the point is that Tim's unnecessary put down was well wide of the mark... And not for the first time.

Still, it's the Internet, innit? Purpose-designed to make it easy to criticise people you don't know, over things they had nothing to do with, from a position of zero knowledge and less respect.

[amanise]

...Still, it's the Internet, innit? Purpose-designed to make it easy to criticise people you don't know, over things they had nothing to do with, from a position of zero knowledge and less respect.

...and often from the safety of anonymous accounts with funny Avatars and usernames. Its a brave new world. The only criticism I have (as one who knows nothing about anything and has even fewer friends) of everything you've expressed here is that it's spelt R.E.S.P.E.K. now I believe. Innit.

Aunty Beeb gets a lot of unfair criticism in my book. The more you travel and see what the rest of the world get served up in the guise of current affairs and entertainment - the more you value it. (Dons flack jacket, gas mask AND steel helmet)