[gregorio]

i also think the best way to get a universal EQ right is to use a linear slope (which are suggested often if you search for "house curves")

I would start with flat, not a slope, although most likely a relative bass raise will be required. There are a lot of variables going on.

Any kind of filter might push a hot mastered track over the edge.

But it’s not a filter, exciters add synthesised harmonics (and usually phase distortions), which raises the output level.

but it(exciter) throws the tonality of the track off to add this extra metallic sheen to the track.

Yes, as explained, the whole point of an exciter is to change the tonality. However, whether it adds a “metallic sheen” depends on what you’re inputting into the exciter. If you’re inputting a signal from say an old tape, which is missing mids/highs, then an exciter just adds back some brightness and/or “air”, but if you feed it something that already has a lot of mids/high then it will most likely just make it more harsh/metallic.

a exciter adds just harmonics, which basicly is the exact thing as increasing distortion/THD

It’s similar but not quite the same. Exciters usually add freq dependant phase and also allow a user defined balance between added even and odd harmonics.

of course music wouldn't sound worse if it sounded better to you.

Why not?

that's literally the whole point of audio processing, to make things sound better.

Spoken by someone who knows little/nothing at all about audio processing, how/why it’s applied. At least you’re consistent, as ignorance is virtually always the basis for your BS answers!

and of course sound science rule#1: gregorio is usually wrong.

And yet when asked for an example of where I am wrong (according to the facts/science) your only response is insults barely worthy of a 5 year old. Therefore, the only “rule” you are consistently demonstrating is that you must be a troll! Let’s see if you can demonstrate that yet again.

G

 

[KinGensai]

Yes, as explained, the whole point of an exciter is to change the tonality. However, whether it adds a “metallic sheen” depends on what you’re inputting into the exciter. If you’re inputting a signal from say an old tape, which is missing mids/highs, then an exciter just adds back some brightness and/or “air”, but if you feed it something that already has a lot of mids/high then it will most likely just make it more harsh/metallic.

Makes sense. I tested the plugin on my metal library and that did not sound pleasant. I'm not an audio professional or anything, so I doubt I'll ever be dealing with the production side.

 

[Takeda`1537]

If you truly believe that you must be misinformed to the extreme.

I have no ground to make a view but for the little exchange I had on my side he is pretty competent. My music / audio engineering career stopped about 20 years ago but, for the two messages that we exchanged, I recognise some of his points and have a feeling that he really knows well his stuff.
There may be just different views about keeping sounds "reference" (or what "reference" may be), how much and what nature of editing, if any, and what the end sounds out of speakers/IEMs should be like, ... etc.. out of this conversation drifted from.

Voicing it over as this sub-thread started with a post of mines and his reaction to it.

Do not think that this a very conductive or interesting topic for anyone so I am writing in an attempt to end it and not to let it drift any further.

Exchanging info and tricks about EQs and exciters tricks, etc would be a way better use of these threads ...

 

[bigshot]

how so? the exciter effects might be just more obvious in the mids

clipping would mostly occur in bass anyway (unless you use some heavy eq)

Clipping is distortion. The exciter changes the timbre. If you're hearing distortion in digital audio, it's probably either clipping or data underruns.

Clipping can occur in any frequency range.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Spoken by someone who knows little/nothing at all about audio processing, how/why it’s applied.

again, apply rule#1: gregorio is likely wrong; in this case desperately wrong.

 

[bigshot]

That reply was made by someone who knows little or nothing about what they talk about.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

If you truly believe that you must be misinformed to the extreme.

as exhibit a, he just denied that audio processing is used to make audio sound better.

can you tell me something more wrong that could be said about audio processing?

 

[gregorio]

again, apply rule#1: gregorio is likely wrong; in this case desperately wrong.

So in answer to my point: “Therefore, the only “rule” you are consistently demonstrating is that you must be a troll! Let’s see if you can demonstrate that yet again.” - The response is effectively “Yes, you can demonstrate you’re a troll again”. Well done, thanks for playing along!

he just denied that audio processing is used to make audio sound better.

No I didn’t, you just made that up, nothing new there then! What I actually did was refute was your FALSE assertion “that's literally the whole point of audio processing, to make things sound better.”. We have processors to deliberately degrade audio, noise and distortion generators for example, bit-crusher plugins such as Avid’s “Low-Fi”, Saturation plugins, plugins to reproduce the clicks, wow/flutter and other vinyl artefacts and various others that are commonly employed. Are you deliberately lying about the existence and use of these audio processing tools (which anyone can easily look up) or are you just ignorant about the process of mixing and making-up nonsense AGAIN, which is it??

G

 

[LisaShayBrown]

No I didn’t, you just made that up, nothing new there then! What I actually did was refute was your FALSE assertion “that's literally the whole point of audio processing, to make things sound better.”. We have processors to deliberately degrade audio, noise and distortion generators for example, bit-crusher plugins such as Avid’s “Low-Fi”, Saturation plugins, plugins to reproduce the clicks, wow/flutter and other vinyl artefacts and various others that are commonly employed. Are you deliberately lying about the existence and use of these audio processing tools (which anyone can easily look up) or are you just ignorant about the process of mixing and making-up nonsense AGAIN, which is it??

G

as usual, wrong not to mention totally disingenuous. as you full well know, people use those tools to make the audio sound better in total. sometimes lo-fi sounds better. people add distortion to guitars to make the sound better. they use lo-fi to make it sound cool. they add vinyl artifacts to make things sound like it was recorded on vinyl, which is cool in certain applications.

 

[bigshot]

I like how you both can make the exact same point and still be arguing with each other.

 

[gregorio]

as usual, wrong not to mention totally disingenuous. as you full well know, people use those tools to make the audio sound better in total.

More trolling + more ignorance, thanks for proving it yet AGAIN. However, we really don’t need even more proof, you’ve provided more than enough already and it’s just boring now.

For anyone else reading, we use the tools being referred to (which I mentioned previously), to make the audio sound WORSE but either more subjectively pleasing or more realistic/applicable to a desired scenario.

sometimes lo-fi sounds better.

Either:
Sure, low fidelity sounds/is better than high fidelity. Just go and buy the cheapest/crappiest sound system available and enjoy the pinnacle of audiophile nirvana. Thanks for your educated insight.
Or:
Maybe you’re just don’t know the difference between “sound” and “perception”. Lo-fi can (under certain circumstances) be perceived as pleasing/preferable to some people, even though it’s actually worse. However, even in this case your assertion is still WRONG (!) because it all depends on the perception/preferences of individual listeners.

G

 

[PorscheFanatic]

Keep the EQ curve flat.

 

[bigshot]

Figuring out what flat is is the whole trick of EQ