Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
ZepHead315

My personal remaster of Trampled Underfoot from 5/24/75

Recommended Posts

I made a remaster of Trampled Underfoot from Earls Court 5/24. I did an analysis of the EQ from the DVD and tried to match it as closely as possible. I also added reverb in order to make it sound livelier. Please note that I am a complete amateur and novice at all of this. I just used the song from Watchtower's "To Be a Rock and Not to Roll" and adjusted it in Audacity. I'd appreciate any constructive feedback you all have for me. Thanks! :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Very nice work! That 5-24-75 source is a strange and challenging one to work with. On the one hand, it sounds very good for an unofficial source. On the other hand, it comes from a video soundtrack and it's a bit muffled and very difficult to remaster.

I think you've done a nice job - this is really listenable and IMHO a great improvement over the base source. I do have a couple of points you might wish to take into account:

  1. Personally I like added reverb, but I wonder if maybe you could dial it back just a little. Earls Court is super-echoey, so even the original source has some reverb that dulls the impact, and adding reverb worsens it. A lot of Zep purists hate added reverb at all, but I am not in that camp - I think you are right to have done so, but maybe just a little less. (If you really want to get fancy, I would say add reverb only, or mostly, to the upper-mids and treble, to sweeten the vocals and cymbals while keeping the kick drum and bass nice and focused.)
  2. The sound is a little thin and lacks some warmth. I think this is because you've applied the EQ from the DVD to a radically inferior-sounding source, and there's only so much that one can put lipstick on a pig. So you might consider slightly boosting the mid-bass, and if you've done a lot of boosting of the treble, you might want to consider dialing that back just a little. In other words, work somewhat with the source and its limitations instead of fighting against it, if that makes any sense.

Still, though, I think this is very listenable and a nice improvement over the base source!

And man, this really drives home how amazing it would be if a full-length Earls Court release were in the cards for Zep's 50th anniversary this year!

Edited by tmtomh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the version from the DVD the 25th?  (Or mainly so?  The guitar solo certainly is.)  At any rate the version from the 24th is flawless, always enjoy hearing it in any format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnOsbourne said:

Isn't the version from the DVD the 25th?  (Or mainly so?  The guitar solo certainly is.)  At any rate the version from the 24th is flawless, always enjoy hearing it in any format.

Yes, the DVD is the 25th and sounds amazing. The Earls Court part of the DVD is perhaps the best-sounding Led Zeppelin anywhere. And yes, this 24th performance of Trampled is fantastic as well. Apropos of my above comment, would love to get the 24th and 25th both released in audio format this year (thought I know that won't happen - if we get EC, it'll be a composite version...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Very nice work! That 5-24-75 source is a strange and challenging one to work with. On the one hand, it sounds very good for an unofficial source. On the other hand, it comes from a video soundtrack and it's a bit muffled and very difficult to remaster.

I think you've done a nice job - this is really listenable and IMHO a great improvement over the base source. I do have a couple of points you might wish to take into account:

  1. Personally I like added reverb, but I wonder if maybe you could dial it back just a little. Earls Court is super-echoey, so even the original source has some reverb that dulls the impact, and adding reverb worsens it. A lot of Zep purists hate added reverb at all, but I am not in that camp - I think you are right to have done so, but maybe just a little less. (If you really want to get fancy, I would say add reverb only, or mostly, to the upper-mids and treble, to sweeten the vocals and cymbals while keeping the kick drum and bass nice and focused.)
  2. The sound is a little thin and lacks some warmth. I think this is because you've applied the EQ from the DVD to a radically inferior-sounding source, and there's only so much that one can put lipstick on a pig. So you might consider slightly boosting the mid-bass, and if you've done a lot of boosting of the treble, you might want to consider dialing that back just a little. In other words, work somewhat with the source and its limitations instead of fighting against it, if that makes any sense.

Still, though, I think this is very listenable and a nice improvement over the base source!

And man, this really drives home how amazing it would be if a full-length Earls Court release were in the cards for Zep's 50th anniversary this year!

Thanks for the feedback man. Really appreciate it!

I too had concerns about the reverb, but like you, I enjoy it. When done the right way, it really allows the recording to "breathe" more and makes it feel like you really are in an arena, as opposed to the at times flat sound of the soundboards. But when you add too much of it, it actually muddies up the sound. Looks like I might have overdone it a tad here. I'll dial it back a little.

Never really thought about the negative aspects of trying to copy the EQ from the DVD for something that's inferior but it makes sense. I'll try and do your suggestions and then post a second remaster. If you want I can PM it to you. :)

Also agree about the 5/24/75 source being a bit muffled and dull. It's weird because to my ears the 25th soundboard (at least on EVSD's When We Were Kings) has much better sound quality. Strange how two back to back nights sound so different!

Once again, thanks for the constructive feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not positive, but I think the 24th & 25th sound different because the 24th is the video soundtrack while the 25th is an actual soundboard recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This TUF is one of my all time favorite live Zep moments.  Just spectacular.  This and STH from the same night-if we get these on this live project later this year... yeah, that's what I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally did a remaster of the whole show. The Rain Song and Stairway had to be removed for copyright, but it's otherwise all there. Thanks again for the feedback! :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ZepHead315 said:

Here's a Google Drive link with all of the songs: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jnmTby19nFOsB7Dyr6ziJ4h4Pkpq2gMP?usp=sharing

Let me know if you run into any issues playing or downloading.

Well - I enjoyed your Seattle 75 effort and I enjoy this. The guitar is more prominent in the mix and overall it has more punch. It’s better than Evoluzione which is my current choice for this show. Thanks for your efforts and thanks for sharing. Well done mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Xolo1974 said:

Well - I enjoyed your Seattle 75 effort and I enjoy this. The guitar is more prominent in the mix and overall it has more punch. It’s better than Evoluzione which is my current choice for this show. Thanks for your efforts and thanks for sharing. Well done mate

No problem! Glad to hear that you enjoy it. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what you've done. As someone who has been remastering shows from the past six or seven years, here's a list of things that took me a long time to learn that I wish I realized sooner:

1 - Figure out the sound you're trying to achieve. This is the most important thing, and it's also the hardest. Listen to a lot of live music, both commercial and bootleg, and find out what kind of sound you're drawn to so you can attempt to recreate it. The reason this is important is it gives you a standard to measure up against so you can judge whether or not you're headed in the right direction on each of your remasters.

2  - It's easy to make things sound different, but past a certain point it's hard to make them sound better. Pretty much any soundboard will benefit from a little reverb and some EQ. Beyond that, making significant improvements is hard to do. Remastering follows the 80/20 rule that also applies to a lot of other projects; 80 percent of the work takes 20 percent of the time and the last 20 percent of the work takes 80 percent of the time.

3  - If  you apply an effect and your ears notice it immediately when you play the song the next time, you used to much. Reverb is the perfect example of this. It's really easy to overdo it, so when you think you've got the right amount, reduce it a little before you apply it.

4 - Your ears get used to how things sound, so step away from a remaster and listen to other bands and other kinds of music for a while, then come back to the remaster. If you're still happy with it, you're headed in the right direction. If not, figure out where you got off track. My rule of thumb is that when I think I'm ready to release a show, I stop listening to it for two weeks. When I listen to it for the first time after that, if I'm still happy with it then I release it. If I'm not, I go back to the drawing board. Also listen on different kinds of speakers. I do my remastering work on a set of M Audio BX5 monitors, but when I'm getting ready to release something I also listen to it on my regular home stereo, the stereo in my car, and on headphones.

5 - If this becomes a hobby that you still enjoy and actively pursue six months from now, consider purchasing professional effects and a mastering suite. Audacity is a great low cost way to see if you like working with audio, but it's severely limited in what it can do compared to even the least expensive software you pay for. Also, free effects often unintentionally modify sounds in ways you don't expect or want. While it's not worth buying anything until you're really sure this is going to be a hobby that you're going to keep up with for a long time, if you do a lot of remastering then professional software will save you a lot of time and make the whole process more pleasant. My mastering software is "Ozone" from Izotope and most of my VST plugins come from the Plugin Alliance. Ozone is really easy to use and the Plugin Alliance plugins are reasonably priced (I've gotten a few of them for US$9.00, and haven't spent more than $80.00 for any of them, although I mostly buy stuff during their Christmas sales), but there are lots of options from other companies as well.

6 - Sound is a very personal thing and what you think sounds good someone else may not like. And this being the internet, they won't hesitate to tell you they don't like it. 

7 -  You'll never get a soundboard to sound like a commercial release. Most Zep soundboards are effectively mono recordings (they contain stereo information, but the only time it's noticeable is during things like the violin section of Dazed and Confused when the sound ping-ponged around the arena.) However, it is possible to expand the the sound so it doesn't just sit meekly between the speakers. Reverb is part of this, but there are other tools that can help too.

8 - Be aware that a vocal minority of people in the Zep community hate remasters on general principal. No joke. Hate them. "Muddying the waters" they call it. Don't let that stop you, but be aware that it's a thing.

9 - It took me years to not be terrible at remastering. I'd finish something and think it was great and then listen to it six months later and be depressed about how bad it sounded. Overtime I got to the point where I can do something and know that when I come back to it I'll still be pretty happy with it, but that took a long time. Don't get discouraged if the same thing happens to you. It just means that your tastes are evolving.

10 - You're never done with a remaster, but at some point you have to determine that it's good enough and move on to another project. If you try to make each one perfect, you'll only ever work on that one show and never do anything else. 

Hope this helps.

Edited by SteveZ98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveZ98 said:

I like what you've done. As someone who has been remastering shows from the past six or seven years, here's a list of things that took me a long time to learn that I wish I realized sooner:

1 - Figure out the sound you're trying to achieve. This is the most important thing, and it's also the hardest. Listen to a lot of live music, both commercial and bootleg, and find out what kind of sound you're drawn to so you can attempt to recreate it. The reason this is important is it gives you a standard to measure up against so you can judge whether or not you're headed in the right direction on each of your remasters.

2  - It's easy to make things sound different, but past a certain point it's hard to make them sound better. Pretty much any soundboard will benefit from a little reverb and some EQ. Beyond that, making significant improvements is hard to do. Remastering follows the 80/20 rule that also applies to a lot of other projects; 80 percent of the work takes 20 percent of the time and the last 20 percent of the work takes 80 percent of the time.

3  - If  you apply an effect and your ears notice it immediately when you play the song the next time, you used to much. Reverb is the perfect example of this. It's really easy to overdo it, so when you think you've got the right amount, reduce it a little before you apply it.

4 - Your ears get used to how things sound, so step away from a remaster and listen to other bands and other kinds of music for a while, then come back to the remaster. If you're still happy with it, you're headed in the right direction. If not, figure out where you got off track. My rule of thumb is that when I think I'm ready to release a show, I stop listening to it for two weeks. When I listen to it for the first time after that, if I'm still happy with it then I release it. If I'm not, I go back to the drawing board. Also listen on different kinds of speakers. I do my remastering work on a set of M Audio BX5 monitors, but when I'm getting ready to release something I also listen to it on my regular home stereo, the stereo in my car, and on headphones.

5 - If this becomes a hobby that you still enjoy and actively pursue six months from now, consider purchasing professional effects and a mastering suite. Audacity is a great low cost way to see if you like working with audio, but it's severely limited in what it can do compared to even the least expensive software you pay for. Also, free effects often unintentionally modify sounds in ways you don't expect or want. While it's not worth buying anything until you're really sure this is going to be a hobby that you're going to keep up with for a long time, if you do a lot of remastering then professional software will save you a lot of time and make the whole process more pleasant. My mastering software is "Ozone" from Izotope and most of my VST plugins come from the Plugin Alliance. Ozone is really easy to use and the Plugin Alliance plugins are reasonably priced (I've gotten a few of them for US$9.00, and haven't spent more than $80.00 for any of them, although I mostly buy stuff during their Christmas sales), but there are lots of options from other companies as well.

6 - Sound is a very personal thing and what you think sounds good someone else may not like. And this being the internet, they won't hesitate to tell you they don't like it. 

7 -  You'll never get a soundboard to sound like a commercial release. Most Zep soundboards are effectively mono recordings (they contain stereo information, but the only time it's noticeable is during things like the violin section of Dazed and Confused when the sound ping-ponged around the arena.) However, it is possible to expand the the sound so it doesn't just sit meekly between the speakers. Reverb is part of this, but there are other tools that can help too.

8 - Be aware that a vocal minority of people in the Zep community hate remasters on general principal. No joke. Hate them. "Muddying the waters" they call it. Don't let that stop you, but be aware that it's a thing.

9 - It took me years to not be terrible at remastering. I'd finish something and think it was great and then listen to it six months later and be depressed about how bad it sounded. Overtime I got to the point where I can do something and know that when I come back to it I'll still be pretty happy with it, but that took a long time. Don't get discouraged if the same thing happens to you. It just means that your tastes are evolving.

10 - You're never done with a remaster, but at some point you have to determine that it's good enough and move on to another project. If you try to make each one perfect, you'll only ever work on that one show and never do anything else. 

Hope this helps.

Wow this is some outstanding advice! I thank you sincerely for this! I particularly like your suggestion about finding the particular sound I want to have before actually remastering it, as well as walking away from it for a while and previewing it again before releasing it to the public.

That's particularly surprising to hear that certain Zeppelin fans hate remasters. I guess I can see that they're purists but still...I'd personally prefer to hear the best sounding version of the show rather than the raw source. But I guess that's just me.

Once again, thank you so much! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ZepHead315 said:

Wow this is some outstanding advice! I thank you sincerely for this! I particularly like your suggestion about finding the particular sound I want to have before actually remastering it, as well as walking away from it for a while and previewing it again before releasing it to the public.

That's particularly surprising to hear that certain Zeppelin fans hate remasters. I guess I can see that they're purists but still...I'd personally prefer to hear the best sounding version of the show rather than the raw source. But I guess that's just me.

Once again, thank you so much! :) 

Finding the sound you want seems easy, but it takes a really long time. If it helps, Winston said it was the hardest thing for him to do too, so you're in good company :)

Regarding "muddying the waters", I believe the people who are against it want to easily be able to find unremastered sources so they and everyone else can do their own remasters. What they fail to realize is that most people don't have the time or knowledge or desire to remaster shows, they just want to listen to something that sounds good. And because of their stridency, they prevent those people from hearing remasters that they'd enjoy because the people who do the remastering get sick of being told they're harming the community. I used to post stuff at Royal Orleans and not only stopped doing that but left the site completely because of that attitude, so those few people who complained get their pure sources while the rest of the people there who liked what I did don't get to hear anything because I don't go there anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 9:15 PM, tmtomh said:

Very nice work! That 5-24-75 source is a strange and challenging one to work with. On the one hand, it sounds very good for an unofficial source. On the other hand, it comes from a video soundtrack and it's a bit muffled and very difficult to remaster.

I think you've done a nice job - this is really listenable and IMHO a great improvement over the base source. I do have a couple of points you might wish to take into account:

  1. Personally I like added reverb, but I wonder if maybe you could dial it back just a little. Earls Court is super-echoey, so even the original source has some reverb that dulls the impact, and adding reverb worsens it. A lot of Zep purists hate added reverb at all, but I am not in that camp - I think you are right to have done so, but maybe just a little less. (If you really want to get fancy, I would say add reverb only, or mostly, to the upper-mids and treble, to sweeten the vocals and cymbals while keeping the kick drum and bass nice and focused.)
  2. The sound is a little thin and lacks some warmth. I think this is because you've applied the EQ from the DVD to a radically inferior-sounding source, and there's only so much that one can put lipstick on a pig. So you might consider slightly boosting the mid-bass, and if you've done a lot of boosting of the treble, you might want to consider dialing that back just a little. In other words, work somewhat with the source and its limitations instead of fighting against it, if that makes any sense.

Still, though, I think this is very listenable and a nice improvement over the base source!

And man, this really drives home how amazing it would be if a full-length Earls Court release were in the cards for Zep's 50th anniversary this year!

tmtomh's suggestions about the bass are well said. One thing that hit me on my way to figuring out what sound I was looking for was when a guy who had done professional sound for a touring band pointed out that bass on recordings never sounds like what you hear at a concert. It never has that "kick you in the chest" sound and force that you get live. And because of that, you end up missing out on a lot of what was played at the show and end up judging it just on how good of a night Jimmy had. Bonzo's kick drum is basically absent from every bootleg recording made of him playing live, and so is the low end of Jonsey's bass. It's one of the reasons that people complain about him using an Alembic bass on the  '77 tour. On the recordings we have, it sounds like a kids toy because the weight it had in concert wasn't captured. In reality, that Alembic was a weapon of war. Here's an example of what it can sound like when it's given its due. The video below is from Empress Valley and I remastered the audio to bring out the low end. For me, being able to finally hear the low end also changed my opinion of the '77 tour. I used to think it was mediocre, but now getting to actually hear Bonzo and Jonsey as individual musicians and as a rhythm section, as well as how they interacted with Jimmy, gave me a whole new appreciation for the tour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SteveZ98 said:

tmtomh's suggestions about the bass are well said. One thing that hit me on my way to figuring out what sound I was looking for was when a guy who had done professional sound for a touring band pointed out that bass on recordings never sounds like what you hear at a concert. It never has that "kick you in the chest" sound and force that you get live. And because of that, you end up missing out on a lot of what was played at the show and end up judging it just on how good of a night Jimmy had. Bonzo's kick drum is basically absent from every bootleg recording made of him playing live, and so is the low end of Jonsey's bass. It's one of the reasons that people complain about him using an Alembic bass on the  '77 tour. On the recordings we have, it sounds like a kids toy because the weight it had in concert wasn't captured. In reality, that Alembic was a weapon of war. Here's an example of what it can sound like when it's given its due. The video below is from Empress Valley and I remastered the audio to bring out the low end. For me, being able to finally hear the low end also changed my opinion of the '77 tour. I used to think it was mediocre, but now getting to actually hear Bonzo and Jonsey as individual musicians and as a rhythm section, as well as how they interacted with Jimmy, gave me a whole new appreciation for the tour.

 

This is an incredible remaster! The low-end sounds much thicker and more prominent and the annoying "twangy" sound of the Alembic has mostly been smoothed out and is not nearly as distracting as it was before. The sound is much more punchy without going overboard as well.

I've had differing views on this show over time. Like most people, when I first heard it, I thought it was a very lackluster show and was thoroughly disappointed. But then I heard the audience tape and my opinion changed. To me, that audience tape sounds quite a bit like the Destroyer tape from 4/28. The difference was like night and day. Sure, I could detect Jimmy in particular being a tad erratic, but the combination of the atmosphere and the crowd made me enjoy the show quite a bit. This led me to conclude that the reason I initially hated the show was more due to the flat dry soundboard (I know it's technically a video soundtrack but it sounds an awful lot like a standard 77 soundboard) as opposed to the performance itself. It's no LA, but it's not the horrific disaster that some make it out to be.

Your remaster, however, might be my new favorite version of this show. I'd love to hear the rest of it once you're finished! :)

You've actually inspired me to try my hand at remastering a 77 soundboard now! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ZepHead315 said:

This is an incredible remaster! The low-end sounds much thicker and more prominent and the annoying "twangy" sound of the Alembic has mostly been smoothed out and is not nearly as distracting as it was before. The sound is much more punchy without going overboard as well.

I've had differing views on this show over time. Like most people, when I first heard it, I thought it was a very lackluster show and was thoroughly disappointed. But then I heard the audience tape and my opinion changed. To me, that audience tape sounds quite a bit like the Destroyer tape from 4/28. The difference was like night and day. Sure, I could detect Jimmy in particular being a tad erratic, but the combination of the atmosphere and the crowd made me enjoy the show quite a bit. This led me to conclude that the reason I initially hated the show was more due to the flat dry soundboard (I know it's technically a video soundtrack but it sounds an awful lot like a standard 77 soundboard) as opposed to the performance itself. It's no LA, but it's not the horrific disaster that some make it out to be.

Your remaster, however, might be my new favorite version of this show. I'd love to hear the rest of it once you're finished! :)

You've actually inspired me to try my hand at remastering a 77 soundboard now! :lol:

There is magic in those '77 shows, but the soundboards hide it without a lot of work to bring it out of them. The bass on that track is mostly from a plugin I got from Plugin Alliance called Brainworx BX Boom. It was one of the $9.00 plugins I mentioned, although it's not on sale now so it's currently going for $75.00. It's extremely simple to use. They key to making it work well is to put an EQ before it so you can control how much bass gets fed into it. From there, it's just a matter of experimenting. 

Also, one of the things I forgot to mention in my list yesterday is that everything I do is the result of the building up of layers of sound. For example, that version of Sick Again was run through my mastering software ten or twelve times. Each time, I build up the sound a little and I keep going until I get what I'm looking for. I'd love to be able to just run it through once and be done with it, but the soundboards need so much help that the layering approach works best.

Something else I should have put on the list is a suggestion to make notes while you're working on a show so you know what works and what doesn't. I know from personal experience how frustrating it is to finally get the sound you're looking for only to forget all of the steps you took to get there so you can't recreate it. Most audio software lets you save presets, so you can give each of your settings a name them and then write down the name and the sequence in which you ran it. I'm not as good at doing this as I should be, but it definitely makes it simple to figure out how you got where you wanted to be. And as a case in point about making notes, I was all excited about being done with the Seattle 77 remaster.  However, I just realized I never downloaded the final few songs of the show and so I now have to go back and get them to sound the same as the rest of the show :( 

Edited by SteveZ98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SteveZ98 said:

tmtomh's suggestions about the bass are well said. One thing that hit me on my way to figuring out what sound I was looking for was when a guy who had done professional sound for a touring band pointed out that bass on recordings never sounds like what you hear at a concert. It never has that "kick you in the chest" sound and force that you get live. And because of that, you end up missing out on a lot of what was played at the show and end up judging it just on how good of a night Jimmy had. Bonzo's kick drum is basically absent from every bootleg recording made of him playing live, and so is the low end of Jonsey's bass. It's one of the reasons that people complain about him using an Alembic bass on the  '77 tour. On the recordings we have, it sounds like a kids toy because the weight it had in concert wasn't captured. In reality, that Alembic was a weapon of war. Here's an example of what it can sound like when it's given its due. The video below is from Empress Valley and I remastered the audio to bring out the low end. For me, being able to finally hear the low end also changed my opinion of the '77 tour. I used to think it was mediocre, but now getting to actually hear Bonzo and Jonsey as individual musicians and as a rhythm section, as well as how they interacted with Jimmy, gave me a whole new appreciation for the tour.

 

Great fucking job man! If you remaster this entire show on this level, it will definitely give people a whole new perspective on this anemic sounding concert. You really brought it to life by honing in on what was missing (drums n bass) and it is actually enjoyable to listen to. Very impressive.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blindwillie127 said:

Great fucking job man! If you remaster this entire show on this level, it will definitely give people a whole new perspective on this anemic sounding concert. You really brought it to life by honing in on what was missing (drums n bass) and it is actually enjoyable to listen to. Very impressive.....

 

Thanks. I'm going to do the whole show and have a lot of it done. However, I'm pretty much in the 80/20 situation now, where the first 80% of the work went quickly and now the remaining 20% is going to take a long time. I'll post links to the finished version once it's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SteveZ98 said:

There is magic in those '77 shows, but the soundboards hide it without a lot of work to bring it out of them. The bass on that track is mostly from a plugin I got from Plugin Alliance called Brainworx BX Boom. It was one of the $9.00 plugins I mentioned, although it's not on sale now so it's currently going for $75.00. It's extremely simple to use. They key to making it work well is to put an EQ before it so you can control how much bass gets fed into it. From there, it's just a matter of experimenting. 

Also, one of the things I forgot to mention in my list yesterday is that everything I do is the result of the building up of layers of sound. For example, that version of Sick Again was run through my mastering software ten or twelve times. Each time, I build up the sound a little and I keep going until I get what I'm looking for. I'd love to be able to just run it through once and be done with it, but the soundboards need so much help that the layering approach works best.

Something else I should have put on the list is a suggestion to make notes while you're working on a show so you know what works and what doesn't. I know from personal experience how frustrating it is to finally get the sound you're looking for only to forget all of the steps you took to get there so you can't recreate it. Most audio software lets you save presets, so you can give each of your settings a name them and then write down the name and the sequence in which you ran it. I'm not as good at doing this as I should be, but it definitely makes it simple to figure out how you got where you wanted to be. And as a case in point about making notes, I was all excited about being done with the Seattle 77 remaster.  However, I just realized I never downloaded the final few songs of the show and so I now have to go back and get them to sound the same as the rest of the show :( 

So am I to infer from this that one way to remaster a show (or at least a 77 soundboard) is to apply EQ repeatedly until I get the effect I want? Obviously it'd be better to do it with a plugin (thanks for letting me know about that btw, I'll have to look into it), and I know that you said Audacity is far from ideal, but could anything remotely similar be achieved by experimenting in Audacity? Also, did you just boost the bass or did you also boost the mid-range and high range? Sorry if these are dumb questions btw, but I'm very new to all of this. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZepHead315 said:

So am I to infer from this that one way to remaster a show (or at least a 77 soundboard) is to apply EQ repeatedly until I get the effect I want? Obviously it'd be better to do it with a plugin (thanks for letting me know about that btw, I'll have to look into it), and I know that you said Audacity is far from ideal, but could anything remotely similar be achieved by experimenting in Audacity? Also, did you just boost the bass or did you also boost the mid-range and high range? Sorry if these are dumb questions btw, but I'm very new to all of this. :lol:

I don't use a lot of traditional EQ in my remasters. By traditional EQ, I mean sliders that are pushed up or down to increase or decrease specific frequencies (and as an aside, that type of EQ actually impacts the frequencies surrounding the point shown on the EQ. How much impact depends on the specific EQ, but a slider that says "2k" actually modifies frequencies on both sides of 2k.) Most of the sound shaping is done in Ozone using its dynamics processor, harmonic exciter, and maximizer. Each of them will change the sound, but in different ways than a regular EQ does. Izotope, the company that makes Ozone, created a really good manual on how to master music in general, not just with their products. It explains what the various things I mentioned above do, and it's definitely worth checking out if you want a deeper understanding of what's possible and how it can be achieved. (I feel I need to note that I'm not affiliated with Izotope or the Plugin Alliance and don't make any money recommending their software, I'm just a satisfied customer of both companies.)

Izotope Mastering Guide (PDF download)

Ozone, and probably a lot of other mastering software, can be used within Audacity as a plugin, so you could definitely continue using Audacity even after getting mastering software. It's also worth knowing that the dynamics processor and other things that are found in Ozone exist as separate plugins from lots of companies, so you could get them individually if you wanted to. The advantage of using mastering software is that it integrates a bunch of things you'd otherwise have to manage separately into a single interface. It's also probably cheaper than buying a lot of separate plugins, although it's obviously more expensive than using free versions of the various types plugins found in a mastering suite. 

Edited by SteveZ98
Additional info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SteveZ98 said:

I don't use a lot of traditional EQ in my remasters. By traditional EQ, I mean sliders that are pushed up or down to increase or decrease specific frequencies (and as an aside, that type of EQ actually impacts the frequencies surrounding the point shown on the EQ. How much impact depends on the specific EQ, but a slider that says "2k" actually modifies frequencies on both sides of 2k.) Most of the sound shaping is done in Ozone using its dynamics processor, harmonic exciter, and maximizer. Each of them will change the sound, but in different ways than a regular EQ does. Izotope, the company that makes Ozone, created a really good manual on how to master music in general, not just with their products. It explains what the various things I mentioned above do, and it's definitely worth checking out if you want a deeper understanding of what's possible and how it can be achieved. (I feel I need to note that I'm not affiliated with Izotope or the Plugin Alliance and don't make any money recommending their software, I'm just a satisfied customer of both companies.)

Izotope Mastering Guide (PDF download)

Ozone, and probably a lot of other mastering software, can be used within Audacity as a plugin, so you could definitely continue using Audacity even after getting mastering software. It's also worth knowing that the dynamics processor and other things that are found in Ozone exist as separate plugins from lots of companies, so you could get them individually if you wanted to. The advantage of using mastering software is that it integrates a bunch of things you'd otherwise have to manage separately into a single interface. It's also probably cheaper than buying a lot of separate plugins, although it's obviously more expensive than using free versions of the various types plugins found in a mastering suite. 

Thanks once again for all this info! I'll definitely look into this more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×