russdog
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
- Posts
- 695
- Likes
- 16
I don't know about you, but having all my music in digital form has changed my life in terms of day-to-day behavior. I've got things set up so that I've got an old laptop with a good sound card feeding the main stereo system, and I operate it remotely from the laptop I actually use all the time. I've got various playlists for when I want music in the background while I do something else, and I've got instant access to whatever I want to hear when I want to really listen. There's only one thing that's missing and it's driving me crazy. I really, really want the ability to establish EQ settings for each file, do it once, and have it kick in whenever that song is played. I'm not a big EQ freak, but there is some very good music that is mixed really badly, and EQ can help let the goodness of the music through.
When I think about it, I'm surprised that music-management software doesn't let you do this. They all have EQ, and many of them provide plug-in capability for other sound processors, such as parametric-EQ. Yet none of them let you do it once per song and then forget it. To me, it seems like this is a big hole in capability. But maybe I'm off in left field by myself about this.
Before digital music, you walked across the room to mess with the stereo for two purposes.
In addition to remote control, another big thing about digital music is that you can have useful automation. This mainly shows up in the form of playlists. With playlists, we have the ability to automate a whole series of actions we would take for Purpose 1. If I like to listen to one certain album after I listen to another specific album, I just make a playlist for that. Or I have 100 songs I like to hear more-or-less together, so I make a playlist for them. The important thing is that I do it just once, and then I have those custom sets of music waiting for me in a completely automated way. Playlists are wonderful, and they also surprise a lot of people. They sure surprised me. When I first heard about the idea of playlists, I was not impressed. At first, it sounded like the kind of thing that programmers did because they could, not because anybody cared about it. But when I lived with playlists, it changed my life. (Same thing with TIVO.) Media automation is very powerful, but I think some people such as myself have to experience it before we can really appreciate how cool it is.
The problem is that we have automation for Purpose 1 only. Except for volume-leveling, we don't have any automation for Purpose 2. Yet, we all know that different music files are different in how they sound. We have volume leveling, which is nice if used properly. It saves people from grabbing the remote to adjust the volume all the time. Some people don't use it, but for other people it's very valuable. For me, and I believe for many others, changing volume isn't really the biggest problem. The biggest problem for many of us is that we listen to all kinds of music, both new and old. Some music is recorded and mixed well, and other good music is mixed in ways that are mediocre or worse. A lot of old Rock that's very, very good is also recorded and mixed very, very poorly. So, to make it sound right, you gotta get up and fiddle with the controls. For some people, it's just messing with the Bass and Treble controles, for others, it's an EQ, and for others it's a DSP plug-in (many suck, but some are good). Whatever it is, it means fiddling with something until it sounds right. Maybe you can't hear the cymbals on this one, and maybe the bass is way too loud and boomy on that one. This doesn't matter so much if you've just got music on in the background while you're doing something else. But if you're really listening to the music, it matters a lot. And it's a great deal more trouble than is adjusting the Volume level. Right now, all we have is the ability to do that by remote control. What we don't have is the ability to do it once for a given song, and have it remembered. Instead, we have to do the same thing, again and again, every single time we play the song.
So, when I stop and think about what software like MM does for me, it does remote control great for both Purpose 1 and Purpose 2, it does automation great for Purpose 1, and it's completely lacking in useful automation for Purpose 2. I think this is true of all the software, not just MM. Simple automation for Purpose 2 seems to be the way in which music software in general is lagging. This is where music software has failed to improve on the old way of doing things. It gives us remote control, but it fails to free us from boring, tedious, repetitive tasks. And, much like playlists, I don't think some people will really appreciate how good the automation of Purpose 2 taks will be. It won't have the same impact as playlists, but for people who actually sit down to listen to their music, I have no doubt that it will be huge. In fact, I'd bet that it will be *the* feature that convinces some old-school audiophiles to finally embrace what digital music can do for them, as well as for a lot of the rest of us.
I don't think the capability requires anything difficult. It boils down to extending the ID-tags to include a multi-field EQ var. That, plus the little GUI tweak to let people write a copy of the current EQ settings into the current song's file, and a simple implementation is done. I think the proper way might be to use frames, and to have plug-in's for DSP options. Then, users could opt to use whatever EQ or DSP plug-ins they like best. I think the newer ID-tag scheme gives us frames, so I think that is feasible within the standard.
For me, MM is the best software there is for Purpose 1. I know other people have their own favorites. I just wish one of them would do what I'm wishing for. I think that, once people who actively listen to their music (and who aren't strongly anti-EQ in attitude) get a taste of Purpose 2 automation, there'd be no going back. If it was done with an architecture that permitted control of plug-ins, it would start an inevitable chain of events. Somke EQ plug-ins would be better than others, and you could choose which you like. Various freaks and researchers would have something else to be clever with. People would develop ways to scan mp3's and suggest Purpose 2 settings based on the file's sonic fingerprint. Other freaks and researchers would develop ways to examine the what you've done with your existing songs, and use that to provide initial best-guess tags for new music, according to your own habits and practices. In short, it would start a new era in which customizing a song's playback sound would become low-hassle enough that people would do it a lot more.
I know some folks think that it's bad to adjust how the music sounds. I think that's fine if that's what you like, and I'm not trying to change your mind about that. What I wonder is, among people who do use EQ or other ways of fine-tuning the sound of individual recordings, how valuable would this capability be for you. It seems obvious and necessary to me, but I've not heard anyone else talk about it. So, what's your take on the value of doing this? Is it just me?
When I think about it, I'm surprised that music-management software doesn't let you do this. They all have EQ, and many of them provide plug-in capability for other sound processors, such as parametric-EQ. Yet none of them let you do it once per song and then forget it. To me, it seems like this is a big hole in capability. But maybe I'm off in left field by myself about this.
Before digital music, you walked across the room to mess with the stereo for two purposes.
- Purpose 1: You walked over to change the music.
- Purpose 2: You walked over to change how the music sounded (volume, bass, treble, EQ, whatever).
In addition to remote control, another big thing about digital music is that you can have useful automation. This mainly shows up in the form of playlists. With playlists, we have the ability to automate a whole series of actions we would take for Purpose 1. If I like to listen to one certain album after I listen to another specific album, I just make a playlist for that. Or I have 100 songs I like to hear more-or-less together, so I make a playlist for them. The important thing is that I do it just once, and then I have those custom sets of music waiting for me in a completely automated way. Playlists are wonderful, and they also surprise a lot of people. They sure surprised me. When I first heard about the idea of playlists, I was not impressed. At first, it sounded like the kind of thing that programmers did because they could, not because anybody cared about it. But when I lived with playlists, it changed my life. (Same thing with TIVO.) Media automation is very powerful, but I think some people such as myself have to experience it before we can really appreciate how cool it is.
The problem is that we have automation for Purpose 1 only. Except for volume-leveling, we don't have any automation for Purpose 2. Yet, we all know that different music files are different in how they sound. We have volume leveling, which is nice if used properly. It saves people from grabbing the remote to adjust the volume all the time. Some people don't use it, but for other people it's very valuable. For me, and I believe for many others, changing volume isn't really the biggest problem. The biggest problem for many of us is that we listen to all kinds of music, both new and old. Some music is recorded and mixed well, and other good music is mixed in ways that are mediocre or worse. A lot of old Rock that's very, very good is also recorded and mixed very, very poorly. So, to make it sound right, you gotta get up and fiddle with the controls. For some people, it's just messing with the Bass and Treble controles, for others, it's an EQ, and for others it's a DSP plug-in (many suck, but some are good). Whatever it is, it means fiddling with something until it sounds right. Maybe you can't hear the cymbals on this one, and maybe the bass is way too loud and boomy on that one. This doesn't matter so much if you've just got music on in the background while you're doing something else. But if you're really listening to the music, it matters a lot. And it's a great deal more trouble than is adjusting the Volume level. Right now, all we have is the ability to do that by remote control. What we don't have is the ability to do it once for a given song, and have it remembered. Instead, we have to do the same thing, again and again, every single time we play the song.
So, when I stop and think about what software like MM does for me, it does remote control great for both Purpose 1 and Purpose 2, it does automation great for Purpose 1, and it's completely lacking in useful automation for Purpose 2. I think this is true of all the software, not just MM. Simple automation for Purpose 2 seems to be the way in which music software in general is lagging. This is where music software has failed to improve on the old way of doing things. It gives us remote control, but it fails to free us from boring, tedious, repetitive tasks. And, much like playlists, I don't think some people will really appreciate how good the automation of Purpose 2 taks will be. It won't have the same impact as playlists, but for people who actually sit down to listen to their music, I have no doubt that it will be huge. In fact, I'd bet that it will be *the* feature that convinces some old-school audiophiles to finally embrace what digital music can do for them, as well as for a lot of the rest of us.
I don't think the capability requires anything difficult. It boils down to extending the ID-tags to include a multi-field EQ var. That, plus the little GUI tweak to let people write a copy of the current EQ settings into the current song's file, and a simple implementation is done. I think the proper way might be to use frames, and to have plug-in's for DSP options. Then, users could opt to use whatever EQ or DSP plug-ins they like best. I think the newer ID-tag scheme gives us frames, so I think that is feasible within the standard.
For me, MM is the best software there is for Purpose 1. I know other people have their own favorites. I just wish one of them would do what I'm wishing for. I think that, once people who actively listen to their music (and who aren't strongly anti-EQ in attitude) get a taste of Purpose 2 automation, there'd be no going back. If it was done with an architecture that permitted control of plug-ins, it would start an inevitable chain of events. Somke EQ plug-ins would be better than others, and you could choose which you like. Various freaks and researchers would have something else to be clever with. People would develop ways to scan mp3's and suggest Purpose 2 settings based on the file's sonic fingerprint. Other freaks and researchers would develop ways to examine the what you've done with your existing songs, and use that to provide initial best-guess tags for new music, according to your own habits and practices. In short, it would start a new era in which customizing a song's playback sound would become low-hassle enough that people would do it a lot more.
I know some folks think that it's bad to adjust how the music sounds. I think that's fine if that's what you like, and I'm not trying to change your mind about that. What I wonder is, among people who do use EQ or other ways of fine-tuning the sound of individual recordings, how valuable would this capability be for you. It seems obvious and necessary to me, but I've not heard anyone else talk about it. So, what's your take on the value of doing this? Is it just me?
