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
trev
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:20 pm
Location: Perth, Australia

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

#61 Post by trev » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:00 pm

Eyeball wrote:
trev wrote:
A quality restored/remastered release of Charlie Barnet's 30s work in particular is not currently available to my knowledge. I'm hoping that a label like HEP or Mosaic takes up the challenge.
Pretty unlikely that Mosaic would handle this.

When you say 'Barnet 30s", do you really want his pre 1939 work that much? Most of his best and strongest sides date from 1939 - 1942.
That's actually the period I meant to imply - as opposed to his late 40s or 60s recordings, for example.

swinglandsmartie
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:37 am

#62 Post by swinglandsmartie » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:22 pm

Matthew wrote: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
You gotta be kidding! Give me the original any day. Somehow you've managed to make a really swingin track not swing! I think by pushing up the bass and treble you've somehow given it more of a 50s lounge feel (which I know a lot of people favour nowadays) but the original is gloriously balanced and has just the right groove/bounce.

Sorry if that's harsh - I'm sure in your room on your kit it sounds just great but not mine.

My feeling is that each recording is different - and just as you have to monitor the levels from track to track (and during a track) you have to be aware of how it's feeling and adjust real-time - maybe a little more bass, less mid - ah that's just right! You know when it is (for you, and hopefully the crowd). And it depends totally on the room, the number of people, and I'm pretty sure even the humidity.

But to distort the source sound is a mistake because when you get into a dance hall you'll most likely have to start from scratch and why have to try to undo your previous effort first? Chances are you won't be able to anyway.

Having said that, there is some pretty good software around for <cleaning> a track - with complex algorithms that look for all types of noise and can play back what they propose to remove so you can hear exactly what your about to lose from an original you tamper with.

... but to do a good job even with great software takes hours of fiddling around even for one track.

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

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

#63 Post by Eyeball » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:08 pm

trev wrote:
Eyeball wrote:
trev wrote:
A quality restored/remastered release of Charlie Barnet's 30s work in particular is not currently available to my knowledge. I'm hoping that a label like HEP or Mosaic takes up the challenge.
Pretty unlikely that Mosaic would handle this.

When you say 'Barnet 30s", do you really want his pre 1939 work that much? Most of his best and strongest sides date from 1939 - 1942.
That's actually the period I meant to imply - as opposed to his late 40s or 60s recordings, for example.
I thought that maybe you had a passion for his pre-1939 recordings.

He was fairly active in 1938 recording for the NBC Thesaurus transcription series. It's been so long since I heard those that I can't remember if they measure up to his 39-42 band. And I can't recall off hand if he made a major personell change around then.

His mid 30s stuff is quite interesting, but pretty different, though his 1937 stuff is intriguing, as opposed to his 1936 sides on Bluebird which are very good, but very mid-30s 'dance-bandy'. I like 'em!

zzzzoom
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

#64 Post by zzzzoom » Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:21 pm

Just wondering if any one has any experience with the Creative Xmod

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#65 Post by CafeSavoy » Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:57 pm

zzzzoom wrote:Just wondering if any one has any experience with the Creative Xmod
It looks interesting. I like that it has both a line out and a headphone jack.

zzzzoom
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

#66 Post by zzzzoom » Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:58 pm

I would love to try it but wonder if it would really make any improvement on vintage recordings . . . .

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#67 Post by CafeSavoy » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:15 pm

zzzzoom wrote:I would love to try it but wonder if it would really make any improvement on vintage recordings . . . .
Good point. What i've noticed, beyond the quality of the recordings of themselves, is the acoustics of the room and the clarity of the speakers. For example, powered Macke speakers seem to have better clarity of sound than powered JBLs.

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

#68 Post by Haydn » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:32 pm

zzzzoom wrote:I would love to try it but wonder if it would really make any improvement on vintage recordings . . . .
Looks very interesting. I think it might work for vintage stuff. I guess that you'll need a high powered computer. I might buy one to try, and if I do, I'll post the results.

zzzzoom
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

#69 Post by zzzzoom » Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:33 am

Yeah, I think I might buy it to try it. I would like to find a place where there is a money back satisfaction policy though . . . :wink:

zzzzoom
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

#70 Post by zzzzoom » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:00 am

I purchased a new one on eBay for $55. (they had 10 is anyone else is interested). I'll let you know how it sounds.

zzzzoom
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

#71 Post by zzzzoom » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:43 am

Well, the Xmod arrived yesterday and I am really surprised at the difference it makes. I have used my headphones and my smaller speakers at work and the difference is really noticeable. I dj every Wednesday night at our weekly swing venue and the sound system there is pretty awesome to begin with so this will be interesting.

As best I can describe the difference, without the Xmod, the music sounds flat. With it, you can hear more layers and it is more vibrant.

If anyone is going to Midwest Balboa Bal-Swing Fest in March, Tea Party (also in March) or All Balboa Weekend (June), I will be dj'ing there and I would be happy to let you hear the difference. The most dramatic (and easiest) way is to listen with headphone and switch back and forth.

User avatar
la musette
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:42 am
Location: Montpellier, France

#72 Post by la musette » Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:40 pm

I had just read this thread before reading Wired and lo and behold:

a review

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

#73 Post by Haydn » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:51 pm

zzzzoom wrote:Well, the Xmod arrived yesterday and I am really surprised at the difference it makes. I have used my headphones and my smaller speakers at work and the difference is really noticeable. I dj every Wednesday night at our weekly swing venue and the sound system there is pretty awesome to begin with so this will be interesting.

As best I can describe the difference, without the Xmod, the music sounds flat. With it, you can hear more layers and it is more vibrant.

If anyone is going to Midwest Balboa Bal-Swing Fest in March, Tea Party (also in March) or All Balboa Weekend (June), I will be dj'ing there and I would be happy to let you hear the difference. The most dramatic (and easiest) way is to listen with headphone and switch back and forth.
Just got mine, and have used it on my iMac, and agree, the difference on headphones is remarkable. It doesn't boost the volume like the Turtle Beach USB sound card. I haven't noticed such a difference on speakers - as it's supposed to simulate surround-sound, I imagine positioning of speakers would be a factor.

zzzzoom
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

#74 Post by zzzzoom » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:26 pm

I used it our "2nd Friday of the month" dance which is held at a Masonic Temple where the acoustics are horrendous. Before the lesson started, as an experiment, I played a song using my Turtle Beach sound card. Then played the same song using the Xmod. The difference was startling. I will be using the Xmod from here on out.

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

#75 Post by kitkat » Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:55 pm

Dangit, I thought the thing plugged into MP3 players.
Oh well.
I don't have a laptop and don't listen to music on my computer often.

I wonder to what extent the weird sound settings in my Creative Nomad Zen Xtra player do similar things to this device? I haven't liked any of them so far on swing music, but I haven't given them much of a chance.

Locked