Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Third Party Plug-ins  DSP-FX - Suggestions For Beefing Up My MP3=Waves?

Author	Topic
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:26 am  I need some advice for adding some clarity and strength to my music files using DPS-FX 6.2. I'm not really sure what to do with the program to get the sound I want. I want it to be powerful with precision; bringing out the "hidden" sounds. I don't want it too sound "tingy" if you know what I mean. Too high pitched. I will be using it in my stereo most of the time. I know what kind of sound I want, but I want to make sure that I'm not going to convert it into something I'll regret later on. Any advice or suggestions to how to go about this is welcome. THX! _________________ Death By Stereo!!
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:15 am  The thread title is a bit confusing. "Beefing up my MP3's" is kind of an oxymoron in that.... they've already been butchered in the process used to compress them. They have had valuable audio information stripped and thrown away. (never to return) Unfortunately, in that format... there's not much "beefing up" possible. _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
jonrose Location: USA Posts: 2901	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:30 am  I gather from the topic title that you're asking for similar things as with previous posts. If you really are working with .mp3 files, I have only these comments, which you've heard before, but I'll say them again: 1) The damage is done. Even high bit-rate .mp3s are like a sketch of a great picture. So keep what you have, no matter what you do. It may be the best you'll ever get, particularly with hard-to-find selections. 2) Enhancing .mp3s is, perhaps, possible, but only to a certain degree. Most of the time, enhancement leads to even more unnatural sounding program material - more or less, depending upon the source, and what you're trying to do to it. If you have any examples of the actual recordings to compare to, that is what you should probably be working from as a reference. (But then, if you had those, you could, of course, encode your own .mp3s at the highest bit-rate! I only mention that as a learning tool - perhaps you could borrow a couple of selections to try this) 3) Most audio-altering software assumes adequate monitoring, and enough of an understanding of audio that the user can make objective decisions in using the tool(s). If you can't hear the changes you're making, then better monitoring is probably in order. Along the same line, if you can't identify and hear what it is that you need to do, I'd suggest finding someone who can teach you the rudiments of critical listening, so that you'll know what to listen for. Once you know that, you'll be empowered to use a lot of tools, hardware or software - in the case of software, the authors just seem to implement different functions as they see fit, so learning a certain piece of software (or the layout of a mixer or processing device) is only half the battle, you see. 4) I'm really not trying to rain on your parade. Lots of people want to do this kind of thing. The bottom line is, there's not always an acceptable fix, and in the case of .mp3s, your chances are many times not unlike playing a lottery game. :) Best of luck! -Jon P.S. If you do have adequate monitoring, and you do know how to objectively listen, and you are starting with .mp3s, you'll also hear just how horrid it sounds when you re-encode your files back to the .mp3 format! :P _________________
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 11:50 am  Quote: Most of the time, enhancement leads to even more unnatural sounding program material A process affectionately known as.......... turd polishing!! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
Gulliver Location: Estonia Posts: 442	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:26 pm  It's fairly impossible to say what kind of processing your music files need without hearing them.
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:10 pm  Quote: It's fairly impossible to say what kind of processing your music files need without hearing them. That's definitely true. However, so is this............ Quote: If you do have adequate monitoring, and you do know how to objectively listen, and you are starting with .mp3s, you'll also hear just how horrid it sounds when you re-encode your files back to the .mp3 format! And this...... Quote: they've already been butchered in the process used to compress them. They have had valuable audio information stripped and thrown away. And this......... Quote: The damage is done. Even high bit-rate .mp3s are like a sketch of a great picture. And last but not least, this.......... Quote: A process affectionately known as.......... turd polishing!! _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:25 pm  These MP3's are high quality rips and they are now waves. I want to use DSP-FX to add some clarity and depth. Isn't that what DSP-FX is for or did I just waste my money on a program that nobody knows what it does? Unlike my previous post these MP3 to wave conversions are higher quality with a lot less sound loss. Besides, an MP3 strips out the high frequency sounds that you can't even hear anyway. At least the high bitrate ones are close to original quality. Jeez, makes me wonder if Cool Edit has a purpose if I can't enhance a track. _________________ Death By Stereo!!
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 5:46 pm  jonrose wrote: I gather from the topic title that you're asking for similar things as with previous posts. If you really are working with .mp3 files, I have only these comments, which you've heard before, but I'll say them again: 1) The damage is done. Even high bit-rate .mp3s are like a sketch of a great picture. So keep what you have, no matter what you do. It may be the best you'll ever get, particularly with hard-to-find selections. 2) Enhancing .mp3s is, perhaps, possible, but only to a certain degree. Most of the time, enhancement leads to even more unnatural sounding program material - more or less, depending upon the source, and what you're trying to do to it. If you have any examples of the actual recordings to compare to, that is what you should probably be working from as a reference. (But then, if you had those, you could, of course, encode your own .mp3s at the highest bit-rate! I only mention that as a learning tool - perhaps you could borrow a couple of selections to try this) 3) Most audio-altering software assumes adequate monitoring, and enough of an understanding of audio that the user can make objective decisions in using the tool(s). If you can't hear the changes you're making, then better monitoring is probably in order. Along the same line, if you can't identify and hear what it is that you need to do, I'd suggest finding someone who can teach you the rudiments of critical listening, so that you'll know what to listen for. Once you know that, you'll be empowered to use a lot of tools, hardware or software - in the case of software, the authors just seem to implement different functions as they see fit, so learning a certain piece of software (or the layout of a mixer or processing device) is only half the battle, you see. 4) I'm really not trying to rain on your parade. Lots of people want to do this kind of thing. The bottom line is, there's not always an acceptable fix, and in the case of .mp3s, your chances are many times not unlike playing a lottery game. :) Best of luck! -Jon P.S. If you do have adequate monitoring, and you do know how to objectively listen, and you are starting with .mp3s, you'll also hear just how horrid it sounds when you re-encode your files back to the .mp3 format! :P With that post, you think I'm a sound idiot. Just for your information, I'm quite good at sound just not good with sound programs. I could mix in a real studio but not on a computer. My problem is that I need suggestions to some settings I could use in DSP-FX that could get the sound I requested. I am an audiophile and I use Senheiser headphones when mastering. I'm not at all a newbie when it comes to sound but I do need help with these programs and their features. With that said, how do I get the sound I want with the program DSP-FX? I need suggestions, not counciling on sound peformance and degredation. Anyone that use this program would know what the features do and some of the presets results. Bright and Punchy to me would be more drum emphasis and percussion but that may not be the case as everyone has their own meaning. What a waste of cash. Now where's that warez site...... _________________ Death By Stereo!!
tomcat Location: USA Posts: 345	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:07 pm  Plasticman wrote: What a waste of cash. Now where's that warez site...... Yeah, that'll get you alot of help around here. _________________ Tom Robinson Production Supervisor WLAV/WKLQ/WODJ/WBBL Grand Rapids, Michigan
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:25 pm  I don't think anybody was "harsh'n your gig". Quote: I am an audiophile and I use Senheiser headphones when mastering :shy: Quote: What a waste of cash. Now where's that warez site...... _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:28 pm  Having had a quick look at what DSP-FX offers, it seems to me there is little in the package which would be of use to you anyway. Of all the FX in the package, only the Aural Activator, Optimizer and Parametric EQ are really suitable for applying across a complete mix - the others are really only useful on individual tracks. Of these three - the Aural Activator is probably the only one you can't duplicate within CEP. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me it's an expensive (and not very effective) package, considering how little it does for you for your particular application. Plasticman wrote: My problem is that I need suggestions to some settings I could use in DSP-FX that could get the sound I requested. You should know this is virtually impossible. Each mix will be unique and changes made to it, using DSP-FX or any other software, will require a unique setting. You can't just dial in figures and get the result you want, you have to change things and use your ears - that's what audio engineering is all about. Plasticman wrote: I am an audiophile and I use Senheiser headphones when mastering. These two statements seem to be at odds with each other. Nobody in their right mind uses headphones (of any make or description) for mastering. Plasticman wrote: With that said, how do I get the sound I want with the program DSP-FX? We honestly can't tell you. Only you know what sound you want. Perhaps you'd like to try and describe the colour yellow for us? Plasticman wrote: I need suggestions, not counciling on sound peformance and degredation. In view of your comments about the use of headphones, I'm not sure that a little bit of counselling isn't in order. Quite honestly, I can't disagree with any of the points made by johnrose. Plasticman wrote: Anyone that use this program would know what the features do and some of the presets results. Bright and Punchy to me would be more drum emphasis and percussion but that may not be the case as everyone has their own meaning. Quite so - my point exactly - everyone has their own idea about what a sound is 'like' - that's precisely why nobody is going to be able to tell you what settings to use. Plasticman wrote: What a waste of cash. Perhaps you would have spent your money more wisely had you asked the questions first. To me, purchasing a product without understanding its functionality seems a daft thing to do. Maybe a lesson learned? Edited to sort out the quoting :-) _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
nhaukap Location: USA Posts: 130	Posted - Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:17 pm  (That's assuming the software was purchased to begin with, which given the comments in this thread sounds like far less than a certainty...)
jonrose Location: USA Posts: 2901	Posted - Thu Apr 10, 2003 12:36 am  Plasticman wrote: With that post, you think I'm a sound idiot. It's really quite regrettable that you read friendly advice with such animosity. No.... With that post, I simply responded in a general fashion, as suited the general nature of your query. Quote: Just for your information, I'm quite good at sound just not good with sound programs. I could mix in a real studio but not on a computer. ...neither point of which you gave any indication of in your original post. You'll have to pardon the general reply I gave, in that case. Then again, judging from the vitriol in your response, this apology might fall on deaf ears. Take it for what it's worth to you. Quote: My problem is that I need suggestions to some settings I could use in DSP-FX that could get the sound I requested. As already stated by another forum member (and as I always allude when asked questions involving specific fixes), this depends entirely upon your source material. Keep in mind that none of us has ever heard these files... Quote: I am an audiophile and I use Senheiser headphones when mastering. I'm not at all a newbie when it comes to sound but I do need help with these programs and their features. That's fine, but it would be extremely helpful if you'd explain more clearly what the task is that you're having trouble with in the future. Not knowing anything about your source material, no one can offer advice as to obtain a particular result, much less know what program or plug-in to suggest or any necessary settings. Quote: With that said, how do I get the sound I want with the program DSP-FX? I need suggestions, not counciling on sound peformance and degredation. Anyone that use this program would know what the features do and some of the presets results. Bright and Punchy to me would be more drum emphasis and percussion but that may not be the case as everyone has their own meaning. The usual method to get help on this kind of thing is to post short samples somewhere so that someone can listen to them and offer advice. (For anyone else reading this, who might be without a place to post files, many sites offer free accounts with limited storage - just have a look around the net). And, if anyone here has any experience with the program in question, I'm sure they'll speak up if you can describe adequately what needs to happen to a particular piece. Quote: What a waste of cash. Now where's that warez site...... It still sounds to me as if the area in which you need the most work is in correlating like aspects of hardware and software audio tools - just working with CEP is a good start. Obviously, it's nothing like running a deck and a desk with all your other outboard tools accessible via patchbay. Just learn the analogs, if any, and how to deal with the differences so that you can suit your style of working. You couldn't have possibly exhausted all the possibilities in such a short period of time, surely. It's also regrettable that you feel you made a bad purchase. Whether you think that extends to CE or just to your new DX plug I will probably never know, but I can assure you that what can be done to enhance your files is probably available at your fingertips - it's just a matter of learning these hardware-to-software correlations, as well as the differences that each of these very different paradigms introduces to the process. Anyway. You may still feel that I deserve your scorn - and that's fine, really. Just don't rag at me (or anyone else) on the forum for offering you sound advice. Remember that you are not the only one who reads these replies, and my responses are composed on that basis, as all of this information is saved for posterity to enable future CE users with searchable topics, discussions and answers to their questions. If you have an axe to grind, it would be best for you to take it elsewhere, as this is not the forum for it, and the moderator won't stand for flames. Nor will the other users. So, keep your posts on the up-and-up, and you're likely to get a lot more assistance next time. ;) Good day. -Jon _________________
the3jsgrve Location: USA Posts: 442	Posted - Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:35 pm  Plasticman wrote: I could mix in a real studio but not on a computer. Now, you can ask pretty much anyone on here who knows me, and they will confirm that I am almost never less than completely cheerful on these forums, but this... Wow! Forget all the rest of the rude stuff you said in response to a completely polite and informative post. NEVER insult the integrity of the digital recording studios we spend a good deal of our lives in if you want to recieve any kind of help. ...as if we all run around blowing our time and money making "fake" recordings all day long. >:K Josh _________________
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:36 pm  Seems that whenever I post here I never get an answer. Instead I get a tutorial on something I don't need. I asked for suggestions not definitive answers. What's the diference from the source? The effect will generally be the same. Yeah, I used an effect with an MP3 and a CD==>wave file, and the effect was the same. I don't think anyone knows what DSP-FX does so I guess I'll go to the Sound Forge forums and ask someone who does. I need the sound crisp, clear, but soft. Is there an effect in DSP-FX that does this? Something along these lines? If it doesn't work I'll just try someone elses suggestion. I'm sure there is or else they wouldn't label the %$&$*#(% effects. Someone with DSP-FX experience would know what setting would do something like this. Really, how hard is it to suggest a tool and a preset that could do this? Not hard at all. Maybe I'll just email them and ask them for suggestions. Btw, there's a difference between a suggestion and an answer. _________________ Death By Stereo!!
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:57 pm  Quote: I guess I'll go to the Sound Forge forums Later dude. Quote: Maybe I'll just email them and ask them for suggestions. If it was that simple, why wouldn't you have done that in the first place instead of asking all of us dumb ass's _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:51 am  Plasticman wrote: Seems that whenever I post here I never get an answer. Instead I get a tutorial on something I don't need. I gave you an answer - you obviously didn't take the time to read and understand it. I'll try again... there is no 'answer'. It depends on the material you have and the sound you want. We aren't privy to either of these, so the answer is you have to try it for yourself. Plasticman wrote: I don't think anyone knows what DSP-FX does so I guess I'll go to the Sound Forge forums and ask someone who does. Of course we know what it does. What we don't know is what it will do to your source. What makes you think that the guys who hang around the Sound Forge forum have a better sixth sense than anyone here? Plasticman wrote: I need the sound crisp, clear, but soft. Is there an effect in DSP-FX that does this? Something along these lines? If it doesn't work I'll just try someone elses suggestion. I'm sure there is or else they wouldn't label the %$&$*#(% effects. Look - I know this might be a radical approach for you but instead of asking unanswerable questions and slagging us off because we can't answer them, have you thought of actually running some material through this software, paying with the controls and listening to the result? Plasticman wrote: Someone with DSP-FX experience would know what setting would do something like this. Really, how hard is it to suggest a tool and a preset that could do this? Not hard at all. No - not hard, impossible. You just aren't understanding what we are all telling you. Presets are virtually useless in all sorts of audio treatment software, since they only represent one persons idea of what worked with their unique input material. For 99% of audio software, the best preset is 'everything at zero'. If you do a search of this forum, you'll find any number of discussions concerning the value of presets, the net result of which is that they have little or no value in the real world and, at the very best, merely provide a starting point and certainly not an end result. Plasticman wrote: Maybe I'll just email them and ask them for suggestions. Yes - why don't you do that. Plasticman wrote: Btw, there's a difference between a suggestion and an answer. Agreed - I suggest you try and form a greater understanding of what it is you are trying to do. If it was simply a case of just using presets, designed by someone else, we would all be first-class audio engineers - obviously, this isn't the case. As it is, you'll just have to learn how to do it the hard way, by practicing and using the best tools you were provided with - your ears! _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
jonrose Location: USA Posts: 2901	Posted - Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:27 pm  Plasticman wrote: Seems that whenever I post here I never get an answer. Instead I get a tutorial on something I don't need.... ....I asked for suggestions not definitive answers. No, you asked for Quote: Any advice or suggestions to how to go about this... Not only that, it was a very vague question. It wouldn't matter if you were trying this with DSP-FX or in CEP or whatever - the only response that can be had for a general question is a very general reply. Quote: I need the sound crisp, clear, but soft. Do you realize how many different interpretations of this that there could be? You'll need to get on track with reality, and start treating each piece that you work with as an individual case (unlike any other)... especially since they've got different types of digital artifacts already embedded in them from the file-compression process, which vary with the source material, as everyone has been trying to tell you. Now, if you want to leave in a huff, go ahead. But don't say no one tried to help you here. You probably got more than you deserved - I don't say that kind of thing often here, but you are one very frustrating individual. Best of luck to you anyway, and I hope the rest of your life goes well with just the push of a button. However, if you'd really like to learn useful concepts in digital restoration and editing, feel free to come back and discuss things, but expect to do so in a sensible, detailed manner, with examples, where possible. No one here reads minds... And just as an aside... Just because folks here use other software doesn't necessarily mean that they have what you do, nor would they necessarily have any answers for you. So coming back here and complaining direly about "not getting any suggestions" about a product that this company doesn't sell, nor support, on their forum, is probably not going to net you much help. We've tried to steer you right, but all you want are presets. Go fish. Good day. -Jon _________________
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:08 am  Well, I got the sound I was looking for and I got it from Power Technologies support. The sound was with the Aural Activator===>Heavy Sheen or something like that. I think my question jus blew over your heads because you were looking to far into it. I just wanted simple suggestion or advice. Some of your own settings would've been helpful to. I wasn't looking for a difinitive answer and that's why I wasn't expecting an answer. That's right, I wasn't expecting an answer. Advice is usually something you give based on personal experience. Regardless if it would've been helpful or not, it's better than nothing, and I expected you someone here to know more about DSP-FX than I. Don't analyze everything. Hopefully, this next question won't be as complicated to "answer". Anyway, I want to apply the effect I've chosen to wave tracks that have been run through the hard limiter, so the tracks are at their peak. I know that applying the effect will cause some clipping. What would be the best way to go about this? Thanks for the help! Sorry if I'm so frustrating. I only wanted some advice not an answer. Btw, I never called anyone here dumb ass. _________________ Death By Stereo!!
jonrose Location: USA Posts: 2901	Posted - Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:13 am  Limiting is usually a last step, but you could convert to 32-bit before your next transformation. Afterward, normalize to just under 0dBFS before converting them back to 16-bit, and that will at least keep (what's left of) them from clipping... ;) Best... -Jon _________________
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:49 am  Actually when I used the hard limiter, I did it do that not one bit of the percent was clipped. I adjusted the db's after I gathered the stats to make sure there was 0% clipped. So the difference between the HL tracks and the originals is minimal, but applying the effect will definately cause clipping. So I convert my tracks to 32-bit before applying the effect? Then I normalize just under 0dBFS? Ok! One question, what difference would it make if it's 16 or 32 bit when doing this? Btw, I use my headphones to pick up slight anomolies that are not noticeable through the speakers. I also listen to the tracks twice; once at high volume to pick up glitches and the other at low volume to find degredation. This could be why a lot of MP3's sound OK when they're blowing out your ears. Thanx Jon! _________________ Death By Stereo!!
Plasticman Posts: 119	Posted - Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:08 pm  One other thing; what volume just under 0dBFS, would be the best to go with? _________________ Death By Stereo!!
jonrose Location: USA Posts: 2901	Posted - Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:36 am  Quote: So I convert my tracks to 32-bit before applying the effect? Then I normalize just under 0dBFS? Ok! One question, what difference would it make if it's 16 or 32 bit when doing this? This has been discussed here many times, but a 32-bit file won't clip until it gets to some gawd-awful number like +1500dB. So you can renormalize a file like this below 0dBFS and it'll be fine. Try that with 16-bit! (hint - that one's a fixed integer format) Just get your file somewhere under 0dBFS - like maybe -0.2dB is fine. This gives room for possible interpolation "overs" when converting back to 16-bit (which has also been discussed here many times). Best... -Jon _________________
ROBSCIX Posts: 254	Posted - Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:55 pm  ah, see thats it....play nice..
	Topic

Page: