TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Signal processors for recording your mixes

Signal processors for recording your mixes

For those of you that record you mixes and possibly hand them to your friends and such, do you guys use any kind of signal processors to boost the clarity and sound quality of your mixes?

For instance, I just bought this sound maximizer unit (BBE 882i sonic maximizer 208$) and it makes my mixes sound extremely great -- quality wise..

I hook up my mixer output to the inputs on the BBE 882i , then output from the 882i to my computer sound card. Prior to me using the signal processor, my mixes sounded dull and lifeless.... After using the processor, my mixes sound alive and "radio-like".

I was wondering if anyone uses a device as I am using and if they are, what unit?

I have never heard of that before.... I plug my straight into a soundcard and it usually sounds just fine once I tweak the levels on the card to record right. How much does something like that cost? And you really notice that big of a difference???

The unit i bought costed 208$... I got the balanced version for the reduction of 'noise' when recording.

It made a difference. I sort of see it like this. The Turntable has a certain signal to noise ratio which is like 60dB or something...(might be more like 40dB actually). A CD has a signal to noise ratio of like 97dB. When you play a cd, it will sound fuller and warmer as compared to just playing a record off your turntable and into a speaker. When you use your Turntables with the BBE 882i, it boosts the signal to noise ratio up to 118dB. So it pretty much makes your records sound as good as your cd's....(frequncy hearing wise) The MAnual on the BBE 882i says that the unit restructures the audio signal so that the highs and lows will be 're-phased' so that you will hear all the frequencies in their proper placement. The radio does the same thing when they broadcast. That is why the music on the radio sounds really good.

The point is I notice a big difference when I use the BBE 882i vs. not using it. The music sounds livelier and the bass and highs are more uniform.

I relate it to the way the music sounds coming from the radio (with its fullness).ITs like you are recording your audio tracks with the audio being already 'mastered' so the sound is really full and tight.

There is a lower model of the unit which is cheaper. It is the BBE 482i and it cost about 120$.

I just got the BBE 882i unit a couple days ago and I am still fiddling with it. I just know that I enjoy the music alot better than not using it. I sure am glad i bought it. It is what I needed to get my mixes to sound better.

I also use it to hook up to my speakers at my house for when I have some get togethers. The music sounds a whole lot better on my big floor speakers now. I cant get over how good the music sounds. ITs more punchier and just makes me enjoy listening to the music more.

dam... now im just rambling....I am extremely enthusiastic about my new toy.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNWmsf dam... now im just rambling....I am extremely enthusiastic about my new toy.

Yea, I can tell Well, I might have to look into buying that. I have some extra cash to throw around right now and I can't justify spending it all on new vinyl.

I have always assumed these sorts of things were basicly compressors. I am really curious whay Thy or some other audio engineer has to say about these types of things and what they are really doing to the signal. I wonder if I could get a similar effect by simply compressing my mixes after I record them within software (of course this would only work for recorded CDs, not playing out)?

Well what kind of needles are you using, if you say your mixes sound dirty? EQ'ing should fix all of that, but you also have to have good needles that can pickup all your records have to offer, and a decent mixer. I'm using Whitelabels, with a Rane mixer, and my mixes sound exactly like store bought mix CD's. I've never used one of those either, but it sounds pretty cool to fool with.

yeh.. my sound is good as well... except when there's something wrong with the vinyl. that cannot be helped

No offense, but since when has music on the radio sounded better ? Also, how can you say that cd's sound fuller and warmer than vinyl ?
Lastly, does boosting the signal to noise ratio help at all when it's chained like that ?

I am running tech 12 m3d with CC ortofon nightclub S and an ALlen heat Xone 32 on a 24bit/96khz ECHO MIA sound card using balanced connections (TRS + XLR). I have just added the BBE 882i sonic maximzer.

Whe I record, I am EQ'ed but the recorded mix does not sound as punchy as the audio heard from the radio. My assumption of what the radio folks do to process their audio signal to make the music sound so great is that they use compressors/limiters/gates/..etc.../and maybe some kind of audio maximizer...(whatever they use the signal is getting processed by some piece of hardware or software).

Same as the clubs... They use processors to make the audio soud really full and punchy.

From what I am hearing, everyone does not notice that the music played on the radio sounds differnet than when you play your records through you mixer at home?

I'm not a sound engineer, but I do hear a difference. (But then again, I might hear music different than others. I pay close attention to how the 'audio' sounds....) I dont know if its the signal to noise ratio thing that makes it sound better.... or even if its the time-phase shifting of the highs and low frequencies... but I do hear a difference.

For any Sound Engineers:
Regarding the people that make mixes, would it be beneficial for DJ's to use some type of signal processor (whether it be a software plugin or a piece of hardware) to make the overall sound of their mixes to sound better?

oops almost forgot...

When mixing between cd's and vinyl, I do hear a difference. It is easier to compare when using both at the same time.

The cd sounds louder and clearer then vinyl. (prob because cd's has been de-hissed or something.. or the audio has been cleaned up vs vinyl is pure analog and you get all the static from the needle.)

I may have used the wrong terminology earlier (fuller/warmer), but what I meant is that when playing a cd and vinyl, and the volume controls are both at the same level, the cd will sound 'louder' vs vinyl.

And with the devices being chained like that, (TT -> hooked to mixer-> hooked to BBE 882i-> hooked to sound card), the sound card does see a larger signal to noise ratio...(I would think... cuz the signal is being processed)

quote:

Originally posted by auujay I have always assumed these sorts of things were basicly compressors. I am really curious whay Thy or some other audio engineer has to say about these types of things and what they are really doing to the signal. I wonder if I could get a similar effect by simply compressing my mixes after I record them within software (of course this would only work for recorded CDs, not playing out)?

Someone called for me?

Difficult matter : exciters, sonic maximizers.
But one thing is for sure, the 40 dB to 118 dB S/N ratio isn't right.

Basically exciters do one thing. They try to add sparkle or oomf to sound.
You'll say, I can use EQ for that. If I want sparkle, I'll boost the high frequencies, if I want body, I'll boost low frequencies. The only problem is, you'll also boost unwanted signal : the noise will come up too. Plus you got another inconvenient, you'll have much level gain. If you boost bass for example. Most of you know that in music, low frequencies take up most of the energy in music. Boost that, and you'll boost that energy too. Your signal will get louder, possibly overloading the next step in the signal chain. Not good.

So, here come the exciters. The most common exciter, is basically an harmonics generator (harmonics being multiples of the fundamental frequencies). In purely accoustic nature, most sound sources have fairly low fundamental frequencies. But some sources appear to be brighter/sparklier than others. That's just because those sources have a ratio of harmonics that's more into upper harmonics.
Well exciters do basically this : they analyse the signal, and try to generate harmonics from that. This will result in a brighter signal. Same goes for the lower harmonics generators (like Aphex' Big Bottom), but they generate frequencies that are lower than the fundamentals.
The advantages of those systems are, they don't really boost the noise (well there will still be some extra noise due to the machine itself, etc...), they just generate new frequencies that weren't there. The second advantage is, since those generated frequencies are in the upper frequency range, their energy isn't that big, so you can go pretty far without really adding much level (the gain in loudness is more subjective than physical).
The biggest problem with those devices are : you add some, it sounds great. You add more, it sounds even better. You add even more, and you got the best sound in the world. You come back after some hours/days, and it sounds terrible, unnatural. Why? Because your ears adapt pretty quickly to that "new" situation. In the end, you always start with the wrong reference. If your ears have rested, they will hear the sound in it's "real" context : too much processing, unnatural and harsh. So the obvious rule here is, use with extreme caution.

Ok, this is the basic working principle of exciters. As those are patented, manufacturers try to find other ways to get similar results. That's what BBE has actually done. That whole rephasing stuff... To get certain frequency components back in phase (I'll point you to the fact that only waves with identical frequency can be in or out of phase), will result in basically the same thing : tighter bass and hi frequencies, without much level gain.
The sound gets less dull.

Now, about the S/N ratio mumbojumbo. You can increase that A LITTLE with expanders and noise gates, but either with a full mix you won't gain much in audio quality, and you are still limited to the intrinsic S/N ratio of the "worst" machine in the chain. Taking a quick look at the manual of the BBE device, you'll see that it's S/N is -92 dBu. So your claim that it boosts the S/N to 118 dB... You can take your conclusions.
Either way, if this kind of device existed (a device able to gain so much S/N), they'd sell millions and get rich instantly.
But think about it. You say the S/N of a vinyl is 60 dB (I'm ok with this). If you think about it, it means the complete mix will be compressed to have a dynamic range of less than 60 dB (otherwise the quietest parts of the mix would be drowned in the noise). Let's say the noise floor gets reduced to -90 dB (theoretically 16 bits means approx 96 dB, in reality, most cd players still have an S/N below 90 dB). The mix would still have roughly 60 dB of dynamics. Your *useful* signal won't have gained a lot.
Compare it to a bucket. You take a bucket of 10 liters (medium), and fill it with 10 liters of water (signal). Now you take a bucket with a capacity of 100L, and pour the other bucket in it. Unless there's some kind of magic or Jesus involved, I think you would still have 10L of water, only in a better medium. I'm sorry to blow your balloon, but a device that's able to "decompress" full mixes (or even compressed individual instruments) doesn't exist. If it would, it would make A LOT of mastering engineers happy.

To make it easier for the read, part two in a second reply...

would you say that using the maximizer to record you mixes would be beneficial for the overall sound or would I get the same results if i didnt use the maximizer?

I know my numbers may have been wrong about the S/N... They were approximates from what I tried to recall from memory...

The music just sounds alot fuller when the signal was processed through the unit. I can only assume that it sounds fuller because the phase-timing of frequencies were re-adjusted. I am now able to able alot more frequencies in the music without other frequencies being muddied out...

Do frequencies get muddied out when since the playing mechanism is analog? I would think that putting music on the vinyl medium and being read by a needle would have more 'audio fallout' than if the music was heard off of a cd and cdplayer.

When I mean 'audio fallout' , I am referring to the way the reproduced (pressed on vinyl or burned to a cd) music sounds compared to how the master recording of the music sounds. My assumption was that a cd sounds closer to the master recorded version of the music than the vinyl pressed version does.

after reading your post again for the 20th time.. i see what you are saying about the maximizer...

the reason why the recording may sound better is because the SIMILIAR PHASED frequencies have been re-aligned so the the bass and highs are tigher aand more conistent. That would only leave me to believe that the enhancements that were recorded make the recording sound better and more exciting. (less dull).

but using the maximizer does not add to any signal strength or dynamic range... but then again when I would play my recorded mix at a lower level, It will still sound great... vs. not using the maximizer.

Cd sounding better than vinyl. The eternal debate, that can be brought down to digital vs analog. It's a matter of preference.

It's true, most actual digital formats have better S/N, so allow for more dynamics in the signal. You don't have to think about noise problems per se (although CD is still a little bit limited). But to get something digital, you most pass two conversion stages at least (one from analog to digital, one from digital to analog : the output). An analog signal has an infinite amount of values for any time you would look at it. Digital has discrete values that are dictated by the bitdepth and the sampling rate. As high as you set them, there will always be loss of information (dunno if you looked, but I've never seen an option to record at infinite bits, infinitely high sampling rate).
But that's not the main problem. With the arrival of new media's like SACD, we are coming to a level, that the loss is almost inaudible.
But the main difference is, well designed digital equipment and media will be more linear than well designed analog gear and media. In other words, analog gear will always color the sound in some extent. By definition, that's a default. But that coloration is usually pleasing to the ear (same thing in studio's why much people prefer valve gear, or analog tape). So be prepared to hear that much people still prefer the sound of vinyl over cd (including me).

Now, for the radio part, I've got to follow prodigy here. Radio's have one huge problem. They want to be the loudest.
People that already read some of my replies know that I'm a fervent defensor of dynamic music. The problem nowadays is, that artists and labels want their music to sound louder than the competition. So the music is compressed to death (last time I checked, there's still a volume button on your hifi. If you want the music to be louder, turn the damn knob). So that's one part. But the second one is even worse. Where do people mostly listen to their radio? At home, while they are doing something else, or in the car. Either way, there's always something else going on at the same time. So what the radio broadcasts must be comprehensible all the time. It must cut through the ambient noise (the car engine, cooking pots making noise, etc). In other words, it has to be loud all the time, with the least variation possible. So, compression galore again (a second reason is the signal must be compressed for broadcasting issues, the radio waves can't stand too much dynamics, you basically get the same thing as I explained why they compress for vinyl for example). Don't forget that the music already got squashed to death before (the loudness race). Squashing + even more squashing = one big mess. If you ask me, radio stuff is horrible to listen to. It might not sound so bad in the first place, but the main difference is, try to listen to a dynamic piece in it's original state. If you would hear that same piece on the radio, you couldn't listen to it that long before your ears would start to hurt. Even at half the volume of the original piece. An overcompressed sound is just tyring for the ears. Not good. Not good at all.

quote:

Originally posted by SUNWmsf after reading your post again for the 20th time.. i see what you are saying about the maximizer... the reason why the recording may sound better is because the SIMILIAR PHASED frequencies have been re-aligned so the the bass and highs are tigher aand more conistent. That would only leave me to believe that the enhancements that were recorded make the recording sound better and more exciting. (less dull). but using the maximizer does not add to any signal strength or dynamic range... but then again when I would play my recorded mix at a lower level, It will still sound great... vs. not using the maximizer.

That's just because it makes it sound less dull. Less dull is less dull at any level.

But that's where the problem with exciters/sonic maximisers arise. In the pro business they try to avoid using such devices as much as possible.
The basic rule is : the fewer stuff you put in the signal chain, the less degradation your signal will suffer. It may sound ironic, but even a device supposed to make it sound better (and that, my friend, is still subjective no matter what you say), is still degrading the signal (in other words, deviating it from it's original form like it should be).

That's why the most important thing in audio is : the source is the most important in the complete chain. Of course the rest that follows should be as good as possible, so you don't lose as much quality.

Lemme give you a simple studio example.
Imagine a guy having the state of the art Neumann microphones, connected to the best preamps money can buy, he mixes it on a super duper mixer, uses the best effects there are (including exciters). Then he wants to record a singer. He puts the singer in a cave, with the worst accoustics ever (standing waves, too much reverb etc). He puts the microphone next to the singers ear (I'm exxagerating to prove my point). A horrible sound will be the result. But no problem, he got state of the art EQ's to fix it. If he's the best engineer the world has ever known, he'll still only be able to get a passable sound out of it.

Now get the guy that saved up to get a decent budget mic, an ok mixer with noisy preamps, and some budget effects. But he uses his wits, and hires a good singer, does everything he can to get good room accoustics. And he spends two hours finding the exact placement where the mic sounds best with that singer. I'll guarantee that he'll get a ten times better sound than the first guy. Why? His source was great. So it needs less fixing. As the sound is great all by itself, it doesn't need much of the crappy EQ from that budget mixer (so little that a 1 dB mid boost might do the trick, and you won't hear the EQ is bad with that). He doesn't need to add anything else because his sound is so good. He can leave out compressors and other effects that can only add more noise to the signal.

This applies for everything in audio or video. Get your source right. If there's something wrong with that, try to find out why, instead of going for the "we'll fix it later" approach. One of the first things I learned in school was : lot's of people are worshipping some select producers and engineers like Don Was, Roger Nichols or Alan Parsons to name a few (I'm naming traditional music producers here, as there is a difference with electronic music producers), because they get that awesome sound. But frankly, it's not because they tweak the hell of their stuff. Usually they get together : good musicians/singers (people that can actually play or sing well, without needing midi quantize or Antares Autotune), a good studio with good accoustics, good mic placements, decent gear and a bit of talent of course. But if those requirements are fulfilled, 90% of the job is done. They don't need tweaking, they open a fader and it sounds good...

Same for dj mixes. If you think your recordings sound dull, find out why. Maybe your needle is a limiting factor, maybe your mixer, maybe something totally different. Try to understand what goes wrong, and try to solve the problem. I don't say to throw away your Sonic Maximizer, I just say, don't always take the easiest route. Just think about it, if you happen to find the problem, and you solve it so everything sounds super without any addition, wonder how it would sound with the maximizer. Maybe you'd get a sound that's even "better than the radio"

I see what you are saying.. great advice thy...(sort of makes me want to make a career change and go into the sound engineering field.)

I think that I am comparing the way I 'want' my mixes to sound vs. what they sound like without the maximizer.

When I record without the maximizer, everything is fine, the quality is there (in relation to how the music was created and is supposed to sound), but I wanted my mixes to have that 'oompf' as you mentioned. Cleaner bass lines, and a rounder , fuller sound, and more punch (or oompf). (basically less dull)

With out the maximizer, i still have a quality recording ... not much 'oompf'. The mix comtains the music how the music was created.

I do think you are right though... I am changing the signal by passing it through another device... I think that some confusion arose from my earlier posts...(After Thy has educated me, I can better explain what I wanted.) I actually wanted to change the signal so that the overall mix that I make will sound less dull. In short, I wanted to add the 'oompf' to the mix..(or add more 'oompf'). I do like the way the artists originally put their song together. Maybe it is because I have a hip-hop background, but i actually like the 'oompf'.

I guess it all boils down to how the DJ wants his mix tape to sound. I actually want to add something more to my mixes than just mixing songs together.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.