Asking about: The Stereo Project / North Bridge

[High-hopes Hailla]

Hey guys: What's up with these "Stereo Project/Northbridge" posts on "BB" of some classic shows that have been popping up on the site like mushrooms in last week or so? I can't find any info. I've downloaded a couple but haven't had time (I have a sick 8-year-old on my hands!) to run them through my hi-fi,  so not sure if they're in the realm of TISDU or something else. They certainly sound like fake stereo, at least initially. I'd appreciate an expert's take? (BTW, I'm one of those Zep fans who doesn't give a shit about being told I'm an idiot--becuz I'm fuckin' OLD and I saw them twice at MSG in 77. So I'm good with my Zep takes, right or wrong.)

[SteveZ98]

Those are my remasters. They are not TISDU. They are remixed to stereo using new technology that splits songs into individual instruments. After they are split, I assemble them into a stereo mix (i.e. guitar in the right channel, etc.) and then remaster them. I sent you a message with links to lossless versions of all of the releases.

Edited February 10, 2022 by SteveZ98

[High-hopes Hailla]

OK---I got it now. Didn't know it was you, Steve. Back around 2008(?) I got to rapping with the TIDSDU guy, probably via "Badgeholders Only"? And he was so hot on his TISDU process on tapes, and he sent my a bunch of CDRs. My take was that his tech couldn't match his goals. Didn't mean to equate your work and TISDU, but I'm always leery of "projects" until I know who's doing them. As David Crosby sang, "Everybody's been burned before..."

[SteveZ98]

No problem. IIRC, TISDU was popular for a brief period well before the software I use became available. The TISDU technique existed long before it was given that name. It involves splitting the left and right channels of a stereo recording and offsetting them by a small amount (e.g. the left channel is moved .05 seconds ahead of the right channel.) It is very easy to do and does give a fuller sound to the song, but it is won't allow you to move a given instrument into a specific place in the stereo soundstage like the newer software does.

And for anyone who is interested in the stereo remixes I do, here's a thread that explains more about how they're done:

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by SteveZ98

[Ian Smith]

SteveZ = Legend.

Nuff said

[High-hopes Hailla]

Thanks for your links, SteveZ. So, I realized I'd already DL'd and enjoyed some of your Stereo Project work without knowing it was the stuff I saw more recently on B.B. Your results are truly amazing. Wasn't meaning to "damn you with faint praise" over the TISDU reference, BTW. I got to know that TISDU cat way back in my Badgeholders days---more than a dozen years ago ("Do ya believe that, constable?") and he was so enthusiastic about his work! So I asked for some CDR's, and while I got what he was going for,  I thought the technology just wasn't quite there yet. Seems like it is now!

[SteveZ98]

No problem. The technology definitely has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. Hopefully it continues to improve.

[zep75]

Downloaded one liked it would love to hear more of your great labour of love

 

[Plant77]

On 2/10/2022 at 11:25 AM, SteveZ98 said:

Those are my remasters. They are not TISDU. They are remixed to stereo using new technology that splits songs into individual instruments. After they are split, I assemble them into a stereo mix (i.e. guitar in the right channel, etc.) and then remaster them. I sent you a message with links to lossless versions of all of the releases.

Wow Steve,

thank you so much for taking the time to do all that you, and others have done and do. Seriously. Thank you very much. It’s absolutely amazing my friend. 
 

Be well, have a great night and I as a life long Zeppelin fan can’t thank you enough.I’m constantly blown away by the members of this forum. 

 

 

[Plant77]

On 2/12/2022 at 7:29 AM, Ian Smith said:

SteveZ = Legend.

Nuff said

No doubt! Steve-Z and a some others have done some amazing work. It is beyond impressive, and it is to a lot of us very important. 

[Michael Fry]

Question for Steve-Z:

Steve, is the technology you use able to fix a balance problem where something is too low in the mix? For example, for some reason the vocals on Communication Breakdown from Fillmore West 1969-4-27 are way lower than the rest of the gig to the point where you can hardly hear Plant. Wondered if something like that was easily fixable. Cheers!

[SteveZ98]

4 hours ago, Michael Fry said:

Question for Steve-Z:

Steve, is the technology you use able to fix a balance problem where something is too low in the mix? For example, for some reason the vocals on Communication Breakdown from Fillmore West 1969-4-27 are way lower than the rest of the gig to the point where you can hardly hear Plant. Wondered if something like that was easily fixable. Cheers!

It depends on how loud the vocals are in the mix. The most extreme example of low vocals I can think of is the 8/8/69 show were the recorder seems like it was stuck inside one of Jimmy's cabinets. In that recording, Robert is often completely inaudible, so there's nothing the software can do. In cases where he can be heard distinctly but his vocals are in the background, the software can usually identify his singing and put it in a separate track. In those cases, I can raise the level of the vocals. However, whenever the software runs it creates a kind of weird sonic artifact on each track. It's not usually noticeable when you mix all four tracks (vocals, drums, bass, and other) together, but if you crank up one of them significantly louder than the others, you can hear the weird noise. Because of that, there's a tradeoff between raising the vocals and keeping the noise from becoming distracting. Another option is to use a lot of compression on the final mix, but that can suck the life out of the performance, so it's not a magic bullet.

 

 

[Michael Fry]

18 hours ago, SteveZ98 said:

It depends on how loud the vocals are in the mix. The most extreme example of low vocals I can think of is the 8/8/69 show were the recorder seems like it was stuck inside one of Jimmy's cabinets. In that recording, Robert is often completely inaudible, so there's nothing the software can do. In cases where he can be heard distinctly but his vocals are in the background, the software can usually identify his singing and put it in a separate track. In those cases, I can raise the level of the vocals. However, whenever the software runs it creates a kind of weird sonic artifact on each track. It's not usually noticeable when you mix all four tracks (vocals, drums, bass, and other) together, but if you crank up one of them significantly louder than the others, you can hear the weird noise. Because of that, there's a tradeoff between raising the vocals and keeping the noise from becoming distracting. Another option is to use a lot of compression on the final mix, but that can suck the life out of the performance, so it's not a magic bullet.

 

 

Many thanks for such a detailed answer on this, Steve. Shame about the artefact but at least your method may give an improved balance to a few shows.

I hope people will forgive me for suggesting this but I've often wondered if the opposite could be done on those 1975 soundboards where Plant is struggling vocally. Taking his voice down in the mix on those painful notes and adding a bit of reverb on it might make certain gigs way more enjoyable. When I made my Best of 1975 compilation, I discovered that some of the '75 boards have such a similar EQ and balance, I was able to fix some Plant vocal cracks by editing in the same beat/bar from another night without it being noticeable. Felt like sacrilege though (even if Page did the same thing with TSRTS, HTWWW and the DVD) so perhaps treating Plant's vocals  would be a better solution. Anyhow, thanks for all your hard work, Steve.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Michael Fry

[JMH]

^

Just need to crack on (pun intended) with the 75 shows as they were performed.

[SteveZ98]

59 minutes ago, Michael Fry said:

Many thanks for such a detailed answer on this, Steve. Shame about the artefact but at least your method may give an improved balance to a few shows.

I hope people will forgive me for suggesting this but I've often wondered if the opposite could be done on those 1975 soundboards where Plant is struggling vocally. Taking his voice down in the mix on those painful notes and adding a bit of reverb on it might make certain gigs way more enjoyable. When I made my Best of 1975 compilation, I discovered that some of the '75 boards have such a similar EQ and balance, I was able to fix some Plant vocal cracks by editing in the same beat/bar from another night without it being noticeable. Felt like sacrilege though (even if Page did the same thing with TSRTS, HTWWW and the DVD) so perhaps treating Plant's vocals  would be a better solution. Anyhow, thanks for all your hard work, Steve.

It is possible to lower Robert's voice, either throughout a whole song or just in parts. The main issue with doing anything other than that is the noise I mentioned earlier. With normal multi-tracks you can add EQ and other effects to the vocals before mixing them in with the rest of the instruments. However, if you try that on the vocals after the software I use extracts them from everything else, it makes that noise much more noticeable. I can still apply EQ to the middle portion of the songs after everything is mixed together (i.e. I can apply different effects to middle and sides of a recording), which allows me to do some work on Robert's voice, but that also impacts everything else in the middle of the recording with him (mainly cymbals and the upper end of the bass guitar), so it's not as simple or effective as modifying true multi-track vocals.

Here's an example from the last night at Earls Court that shows what the individual instruments sound like by themselves and then all mixed together. It doesn't include the vocals, but the noise on the instruments is similar to the noise on the vocals.

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by SteveZ98

[Michael Fry]

I see what you mean, Steve. So strange how the artefacts disappear when the instruments are combined. Are you familiar with Lord Reith's stereo remixing/demixing of the '62-'67 Beatles recordings which he posts on the beatlegdb.com forum? Wonder if you guys use the same software. He's also doing an invaluable service for the fan community with great results, like yourself. Makes me also wonder what technology is just around the corner for public use! Looking forward to hearing in a couple of weeks what Giles Martin has achieved with Revolver using Peter Jackson's Get Back tech.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Michael Fry

[SteveZ98]

12 hours ago, Michael Fry said:

I see what you mean, Steve. So strange how the artefacts disappear when the instruments are combined. Are you familiar with Lord Reith's stereo remixing/demixing of the '62-'67 Beatles recordings which he posts on the beatlegdb.com forum? Wonder if you guys use the same software. He's also doing an invaluable service for the fan community with great results, like yourself. Makes me also wonder what technology is just around the corner for public use! Looking forward to hearing in a couple of weeks what Giles Martin has achieved with Revolver using Peter Jackson's Get Back tech.

I haven't heard any of Lord Reith's stereo remixes. I just went to beatlegdb.com and found his stuff but didn't see any links to download or listen to them, so I can't comment on them. I can say the technology I use would have a hard time with Beatles stuff because it cannot separate John and George's guitars into two separate tracks. I have this problem with Zep shows in the acoustic sets where JPJ and Jimmy are both playing guitars/mandolins/three necked acoustical things. There is a way to work with them in a single track to really expand how wide they are, but I can''t put what Jimmy's playing in the right channel and what JPJ is playing in the left. However, the splitting technology I use is still relatively new, so I'm guessing it will improve significantly in the coming years. In its current state, it seems best suited for power trio with vocals type bands (Zep, The Who, Hendrix, etc.)