How do you get late 30s tracks to sound brighter at dances?

Tips and techniques of the trade

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#16 Post by Eyeball » Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:49 pm

SOURCE MATERIAL

Last night the importance of quality source material was once again proven to me.

A friend of mne sent me some broadcast material of Glenn Miller from 1939 and the sound quality is astounding - unbelievable. When the music was over and the announcer came on, I thought that someone had dubbed their voice in, but nope. Just a crystal clear, well preserved. well engineered and well recorded broadcast from somewhere.

If I knew how to make MP3's, I'd pop it on here for you.
Will big bands ever come back?

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#17 Post by Haydn » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:16 am

I've noticed a wide range in recording sound quality with Glenn Miller.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#18 Post by Eyeball » Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:48 am

Haydn wrote:I've noticed a wide range in recording sound quality with Glenn Miller.
Largely de facto as there is so much GM stuff out there vs so many other bands who have very litle live stuff in circulation.

Glenn Miller in Canada 1942 - "A String of Pearls"

http://tinyurl.com/y4uwba
Will big bands ever come back?

User avatar
Bob the Builder
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

#19 Post by Bob the Builder » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:06 pm

Getting back to making songs sound “Brighter”

I was reading back over my Live Sound Reinforcement book, and “Brighter” is a specific term in regard to EQ. It refers to any of the frequencies above 2kHz. If the mix is lacking some of these frequencies it is said to be lacking Brightness.
Many recording recorded before the use of Magnetic Tape, tended to be lacking in frequencies above 8kHz. So they would be lacking Brightness.
As we know though, there is very little we can do about it.

Brian
Image

User avatar
morte100
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: How do you get late 30s tracks to sound brighter at danc

#20 Post by morte100 » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:49 pm

Haydn wrote:How do you get these tracks to sound brighter at dances?
The best tool a DJ has for this is the EQ. On a standard DJ mixer with 3 EQ Knobs - low, mid, high, my default for modern recordings is to leave the EQ flat (set in the middle). My default for early recordings is to increase the high, decrease the mid, increase the low and then increase the volume. I then adjust as necessary, but that gets me in the ballpark.

Some DJ's don't pay much attention to equalization, and that's really too bad. It's a matter of paying attention and noticing the differences between different recordings that allows you to develop a sensitivity to sound quality. If, as a DJ, you're not making EQ/level adjustments between each song, you're probably selling your sets (and ultimately your audience) short.

If you want to train your ear, spend some time experimenting (playing) with the EQ settings when nobody's there. Make major adjustments to see what happens. Then, when you're playing for dancers, pay attention to the sound and make small incremental adjustments until it sounds just right. Then go pick out your next song. Your dancers probably won't thank you for the extra effort, but they will like what you do more even if they don't know why.

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

Re: How do you get late 30s tracks to sound brighter at danc

#21 Post by Haydn » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:56 pm

morte100 wrote:
Haydn wrote:How do you get these tracks to sound brighter at dances?
The best tool a DJ has for this is the EQ. On a standard DJ mixer with 3 EQ Knobs - low, mid, high, my default for modern recordings is to leave the EQ flat (set in the middle). My default for early recordings is to increase the high, decrease the mid, increase the low and then increase the volume. I then adjust as necessary, but that gets me in the ballpark.
I've found the same settings make sense for me.

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

Re: How do you get late 30s tracks to sound brighter at danc

#22 Post by Haydn » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:04 pm

morte100 wrote:
Haydn wrote:How do you get these tracks to sound brighter at dances?
The best tool a DJ has for this is the EQ. On a standard DJ mixer with 3 EQ Knobs - low, mid, high, my default for modern recordings is to leave the EQ flat (set in the middle). My default for early recordings is to increase the high, decrease the mid, increase the low and then increase the volume. I then adjust as necessary, but that gets me in the ballpark.

Some DJ's don't pay much attention to equalization, and that's really too bad. It's a matter of paying attention and noticing the differences between different recordings that allows you to develop a sensitivity to sound quality. If, as a DJ, you're not making EQ/level adjustments between each song, you're probably selling your sets (and ultimately your audience) short.

If you want to train your ear, spend some time experimenting (playing) with the EQ settings when nobody's there. Make major adjustments to see what happens. Then, when you're playing for dancers, pay attention to the sound and make small incremental adjustments until it sounds just right. Then go pick out your next song. Your dancers probably won't thank you for the extra effort, but they will like what you do more even if they don't know why.
Assuming all this is true, surely laptops score over CDs, as you have far more control over EQ settings, and can program settings in advance.

User avatar
kitkat
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 10:34 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

#23 Post by kitkat » Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:09 pm

Well, I'd go for KNOBS over mouse-click-controlled devices, but otherwise, yeah. (If your laptop plugged into more knobs on a board, I suppose that'd be ideal. Play with whatever end you get to first.)

Knobs are just faster to jump between, and you can use both hands at once. It lets you adjust if there's a weird part of a song you just love, but those 30 seconds need to sound better to make sure you don't kill the energy mid-song...

(Kind of like turning the volume up during a quiet part, then turning it back down--only more advanced.)

User avatar
Bob the Builder
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

#24 Post by Bob the Builder » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:54 pm

Assuming your PA is “Tuned” to your room, the only reason you should need to adjust the track EQ is if the Mastering is not good.
But how often do we (Swing DJ’s) actually have tuned PA’s and good mastered tracks to use.
It is worth reading up on EQ’s before you decide to go mad. Have an understanding on the frequencies affected by the low, mid and high pots and knowledge that the low and high pots are Shelving EQ’s.
My first little mixer had a 5 bar graphic EQ which back in the day gave me a little bit more control.
If you want to up the higher frequencies it will need to be above 8kH. Most of the recording “hiss” is around the 6kH. Remember, is you bring up the 8kH EQ it will also bring up the frequencies around it, and the degree of this depends on the “Q” of the Equalizer.

Brian :D
Image

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#25 Post by Haydn » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:45 am

kitkat wrote:Well, I'd go for KNOBS over mouse-click-controlled devices, but otherwise, yeah. (If your laptop plugged into more knobs on a board, I suppose that'd be ideal.
Yeah, I meant laptop instead of CDs. You can have preset EQs for tracks on the laptop. Then adjust the EQ on the mixer on the night.

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#26 Post by Haydn » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:47 am

Bob the Builder wrote:Most of the recording “hiss” is around the 6kH.
That's one thing I've learned from using the iTunes equaliser. The 8k control is where the hiss is.

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#27 Post by Haydn » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:49 am

Bob the Builder wrote:the low and high pots are Shelving EQ’s.
What's a Shelving EQ Brian :?:

User avatar
Matthew
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 7:31 am
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida

#28 Post by Matthew » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:05 pm

This thread prompted me to try EQing an old track, which was something I'd been thinking about doing.

I used Fletcher Henderson's "Radio Rhythm" from the CD, Tidal Wave, because that's about all I had on the computer. I opened the .wav in Cubase, and EQed with three bands, then added a little reverb to make it sound more like a live orchestra. I wasn't really trying to make it sound brighter. I wanted it to sound more like a modern recording.

It made me think that, short of using expensive studio-equipment, tricking the ear into believing the sound is brighter may be the easiest option.

Here are the results of my quick test. Each is a 30-second, 5-megabyte .wav file.

Original (from the CD)

Doctored version

User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

#29 Post by Lawrence » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:17 pm

Many people try to create a brighter (and bassier) sound in vintage recordings by severely boosting the treble and bass. Unfortunately, although doing so creates some additional punch, it also brings in a LOT of white noise from the high end, and a great deal of indecipherable, inexact, and muddled "thuds" in the low end: many of which could even be a random product of the modern remastering onto CD, not the original recording. The result ends up severely distorting the music.

Vintage recordings simply didn't have sound in the higher and lower ranges that we now consider commonplace in our recordings, so boosting those high and low ranges usually just boosts a lot of empty, white noise, as well as makes it sound oddly muffled and yet tinny at the same time. The problem is that you can't accurately put deeper bass or brighter treble into a recording that simply does not have the deep bass range of modern recordings. Ultimately, you mostly just end up highlighting the deficiencies of the original recordings and muffling the overall sound.

I have also noticed that many vintage recordings sound better on BAD modern-day equipment that does not have the wide dynamic range or accuracy of a better system. For instance, when watching "Sun Valley Jump," the tired Glenn Miller songs in that movie sounded much better and richer on my television than I ever imagined they could sound. Indeed, they sounded MUCH better than the very same recordings sounded on my CD of Glenn Miller movie songs ("Glenn Miller in Hollywood") when I played them on my home stereo. I even A/B compared the two, and the crappy television speakers ironically sounded MUCH better than the same songs on my rather-good home stereo. I suspect it is because the bad systems/speakers today better replicate the restricted dynamic range of the vintage players/recorders of the day, and don't try to play the high and low ends like better systems/speakers do.

Thus, I now actually reduce the bass and treble when I play vintage music, which allows the music to sound like it was supposed to sound, not what we wish it would have sounded like. Although it takes a second for our ears to adjust, it actually ends up being MUCH easier to listen through the poor sound quality and enjoy what is there instead of listening through the white noise and clutter at either end of the spectrum for sound that is not there and never will be there.
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#30 Post by Haydn » Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:05 pm

Lawrence wrote:I suspect it is because the bad systems/speakers today better replicate the restricted dynamic range of the vintage players/recorders of the day, and don't try to play the high and low ends like better systems/speakers do. Thus, I now actually reduce the bass and treble when I play vintage music, which allows the music to sound like it was supposed to sound, not what we wish it would have sounded like.
Surely the record companies had to work within their budgets and the limitations of the recording and playback equipment available at that time. Records were produced to play on 78rpm record players with relatively poor sound. The challenge is to get the same recordings to sound good on modern sound equipment. Otherwise, you could just get the 78rpm records and a 78rpm record player, and amplify it.

Locked