Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 208
Like Tree68Likes

Thread: The Legend of Zelda: Symphony of the Goddesses (recording)

  1. #76
    Is A Man tangotreats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,627
    Hehe funny story about your dead
    He's very much alive; although after that little escapade, his continued survival was certainly in doubt.

  2. #77
    Grand Shriner amld1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by tangotreats View Post
    He's very much alive; although after that little escapade, his continued survival was certainly in doubt.
    Whoops!! Very unfortunate type, Sorry about that !

  3. #78
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Anyway, I'm sorry amld1, but I'm on tangotreats's side of this argument. No hard feelings, I just hate noise in my recordings.
    Quote Originally Posted by k_bacon View Post
    Hi! First, thank you for this! The recording quality is stunning, as far as it concerns me.

    My question is: Are you still working on this one, or is it finished? I just ask because I want to know whether I can burn it for my archives or I should wait.
    No, not yet. I won't resume work on it for a little while, though.

  4. #79
    Grand Shriney
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,846
    will you be adding any bass boosting? the recording is a bit on the treble-y side...

  5. #80
    Grand Shriner amld1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by link28469 View Post
    Anyway, I'm sorry amld1, but I'm on tangotreats's side of this argument. No hard feelings, I just hate noise in my recordings. In a response to apost I can't qoute due to the amount of time it would take to go to the previous page (with my internet not working very well), This is not finished yet.
    Hey, No offense taken it's all for the fun of conversation ofcourse

  6. #81
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Faleel View Post
    will you be adding any bass boosting? the recording is a bit on the treble-y side...
    I thought so, too. For some reason, the usual procedure didn't work very well... In comparing the audio to the original, however, it sounds like the same bass/treble balance. I'll figure something out after I finish my current rip. Don't worry.
    Quote Originally Posted by amld1 View Post
    Hey, No offense taken it's all for the fun of conversation ofcourse
    Awesome.

  7. #82
    Grand Shriney
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,846
    I have a good solution.

    add a bunch of bass to a duplicate track, then turn the volume down on the duplicate, then repeat as necessary

  8. #83
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Faleel View Post
    I have a good solution.

    add a bunch of bass to a duplicate track, then turn the volume on the duplicate, then repeat as necessary
    This may sound like a good idea, but the problem is that this will greatly degrade the audio. I would need to start from a previous step. It seems that the bassline is what was clipped.

  9. #84
    Grand Shriney
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,846
    how would it?

  10. #85
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Faleel View Post
    how would it?
    Audio wil degrade in signal and will be dithered if exported in less bits. You can losslessly edit audio without any degradation of the audio signal, so long as you're using enough bits (16 bit, 24-bit, 32-bit). In working with 16 bit audio, importing it as 32-bit and exporting it back as 16 results in higher quality audio than what would result from importing it as 16, editing, and exporting it. There would be no loss in audio signal that is perceivable to any human ear, though following the latter method would cause a greatly-noticeable loss in quality. Here's why: Every process that changes the audio (like normalize, amplify, etc., but NOT anythin g like cutting, switching channels, pasting, or deleting) can be done with no degradation, so long as there is 1 unused bit for each change of 6dB and each part of 6dB, as well as one for each process. In other words, if I have a 16 bit file that I amp. by 8dB in one process, I'll be using the original 16 bits+1 for 6 of the 8dB+1 for the other 2dB+1 for that process. Also, there is 1 used when exporting. (though if no effects are applied, you can go over by 1.) This is why I go back and do everything in the least amount of steps possible. (Don't worry, though. Like I said, this is better than me doing everything at 16 bits, as every change to the audio would degrade it, and result in the equivalent of a 64kb mp3) It is impossible to edit audio from a live recording without loss in quality, but I did it with the smallest loss possible: ~.001% (yes a thousandth of a percent). The reason I never removed the white noise is because that seemed to cause warbling, and that's the ugliest sound in existence (to an audiophile) Still, you'd never want the original files, as the severe clipping would damage your speakers pretty quickly. The signal to noise ratio was unobscured, and will stay this way. I will edit it again soon, but I've got a lossless recording of Kid Icarus: Uprising to finish first.

  11. #86
    Is A Man tangotreats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,627
    I think there's some confusion here as to the purpose of bit-depth and its effect on editing.

    It is best to work on audio at its native sample rate and bit depth. If your audio is 16 bit to start with, and your intended output depth is 16-bit... leave it at 16-bit!

    Bit depth = dynamic range. The higher the depth, the greater the dynamic range. You are starting with a recording that has a theoretical maximum of 16-bits worth of range... and in reality it will have much less than that because it's been made on consumer recording equipment. When you amplify, you are not changing the dynamic range - you are merely raising the amplitude of each sample; but the amplitude of sample to sample remains constant.

    Bit depth has nothing to do with sample rate or with quality; only dynamic range and NOTHING MORE.

    If you can tell the difference between a file which started off 16-bit and had FIFTY THOUSAND transformations performed on it... you'd be the only person on the planet who could.

    We're not talking about MP3-esque, lossy encoding type degradation, here. We're talking about differences so infinitesimal that they simply do not exist in the real world. You're worrying about the difference in statistical likelihood that you could flush an elephant or a wildebeest down the toilet. Yeah, the two animals are different in size - but for the purposes of the test (which one fits down the toilet) they are both identical.

    As a side note, making your initial recording at a higher bit depth IS very useful, because it gives you dynamic headroom. It means you can set your levels lower, reducing the risk of clipping, knowing that you can amplify later on for your 16-bit mixdown. Classical music recordings have been made this way for years. Recording at 24-bit, processing at 24-bit, and dithering down to 16-bit at the end of the editing process is better than recording at 16-bit from the outset.

    (Let's say I'm recording a symphony orchestra at 16 bits. Because I want to avoid clipping and I don't know precisely how loud the orchestra will play, I set my levels conservatively. At the end of the recording, I discover I have only used 12 bits - perhaps less - of dynamic range! If I go back and make the same recording at 24-bits, set my levels conservatively, at the end I may have a recording with 18 or 20 bits of dynamic range; which I can process, amplify, and dither down to 16 bits at the end giving a final result with greater dynamic range than I would have been able to achieve with my 16-bit master.)

    Quite apart from all that, any competent editing software performs its calculations internally at 32-bit anyway... so all this is pointless.

  12. #87
    Grand Shriner tombraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    205
    Much appreciated. Repped.
    "Mar-ty's Bet-ter... *clap-clap-clapclapclap* Mar-ty's Bet-ter..."

  13. #88
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    In quoting tangotreats, so the differences are much smaller than I thought? I'm still OCD with audio quality, though. Regardless, I kept it at the highest quality possible, despte the difference being so miniscule. I do know that converting it to 32 a second time and re-dithering sounds weird, though.

  14. #89
    Grand Shriney
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,846
    Strange, I never noticed any problems when I "bassed" up the rear channels to the Hook Blu-ray for the Ultimate War inserts....

    Or when I added reverb to Star Trek IV in a similar way...

    ---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    this is what I did: [Hidden link. Register to see links.]

    how does it sound?

  15. #90
    Is A Man tangotreats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,627
    All this converting backwards and forwards is likely to be causing more trouble; dithering is another word for guessing. It is processing something so that it fits in a space it wasn't designed to fit in.

    That said, if dithering 16 bit to 32 and back again sounds weird, there's either something badly wrong with your dithering algorithm or your playback software, or you're suffering from the audiophile's worst enemy, Placebo Effect. (Or, I'm misunderstanding what you're doing in which case I apologise.)

    There's nothing wrong about being OCD with audio quality... I wish more people were - then perhaps we wouldn't have to many shite-sounding CDs put out by people who really should know better...

    However, and I mean you no disrespect WHATSOEVER when I say this, I think that a little knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing. As humans, when we know a little bit about something we tend to fill in the blank bits with guesses; and where we don't know enough to even guess, with outright fantasy.

    Welcome to the world of people who think that putting a 1,500 plastic card next to their Hi-fi will make their CDs sound better... who think that a 50,000 SP/DIF cable will give them better sound than a 50p cable... who think they need to record at silly sample rates (96khz, 192khz) when human hearing tops out around 40khz... who think that there's a difference between FLAC and WAV - never mind the maths, MY EARS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN 1+1=2... who want a TV with 200khz refresh rate despite the fact that they're feeding it Hollywood moves at 24fps... who eschew CDs in favour of one of these ([Hidden link. Register to see links.]) ridiculous turntables, and a fruity valve amplifier in order to play back distorted, poor dynamic range vinyl because it "sounds better". Etcetera, etcetera.

    Being an audiophile is about knowing enough about technology to know what is meaningless and what is meaningful.

    TL;DR - you're worrying about things that will affect sound quality in the same way that a missing feather from my pillow will affect the quality of my sleep.

    ---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Faleel View Post
    Strange, I never noticed any problems when I "bassed" up the rear channels to the Hook Blu-ray for the Ultimate War inserts....

    Or when I added reverb to Star Trek IV in a similar way...

    ---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    this is what I did: [Hidden link. Register to see links.]

    how does it sound?
    Unnatural and boomy.

  16. #91
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by tangotreats View Post
    All this converting backwards and forwards is likely to be causing more trouble; dithering is another word for guessing. It is processing something so that it fits in a space it wasn't designed to fit in.
    Which is exactly why I'm not converting back and forth. Also, wouldn't it be better if I used a leveler, instead of a bass bosst?
    Quote Originally Posted by tangotreats View Post
    There's nothing wrong about being OCD with audio quality... I wish more people were - then perhaps we wouldn't have to many shite-sounding CDs put out by people who really should know better...

    However, and I mean you no disrespect WHATSOEVER when I say this, I think that a little knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing. As humans, when we know a little bit about something we tend to fill in the blank bits with guesses; and where we don't know enough to even guess, with outright fantasy.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by tangotreats View Post
    Being an audiophile is about knowing enough about technology to know what is meaningless and what is meaningful.

    TL;DR - you're worrying about things that will affect sound quality in the same way that a missing feather from my pillow will affect the quality of my sleep.
    Okay, this is a really good example. I see your point

  17. #92
    Onion Kid
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by link28469 View Post
    ... go to [Hidden link. Register to see links.].
    S'it just me, or does this link not go anywhere but MediaFire's homepage?

    Sterling work on this, though! ^_^

  18. #93
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Isakawa2501 View Post
    S'it just me, or does this link not go anywhere but MediaFire's homepage?

    Sterling work on this, though! ^_^
    Sterling is my middle name! And no, I'm not saying a figure of speech, Sterling literally is my middle name.
    It seems to be working for me [Hidden link. Register to see links.]

  19. #94
    Onion Kid
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by link28469 View Post
    It seems to be working for me [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    Not anything against you, but this url thing is really annoying me!

    I can't believe I'm saying this, but can you try another U/L site? Maybe MediaFire's just being stupid...

  20. #95
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by bones777 View Post
    Not anything against you, but this url thing is really annoying me!

    I can't believe I'm saying this, but can you try another U/L site? Maybe MediaFire's just being stupid...
    At the moment, I can't, but try these (or copy them into something like jdownloader):
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    [Hidden link. Register to see links.]
    The links to my recording are in the first post, so I didn't include them here. Hopefully this helps, as I think your browser might have problems with MF folders (though even exploder had it working, last I checked.)
    Also try removing the download.php part from the urls.

    I will say this, though: There have been countless times I've had problems like yours, but never on MediaFire (usually involving scripts like page display and redirects). In these situations, other sites will be really stupid and give you a DL button/link and you'll click on it, nothing will happen, and the site will tell you that you reached their stupid download limit. So it could be worse... If all else fails, I'll upload these elsewhere, but I'm busy with a lot of audio right now, so I can't yet. Sorry.
    Nocturnal Risk likes this.

  21. #96
    Onion Kid
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    25
    WaitWaitWait!

    I agree with you. Maybe my browser and/or stupid computer can't handle MediaFire's folders. But, when provided the actual links, it works!

    Quote Originally Posted by link28469 View Post
    (though even exploder had it working, last I checked.)
    Had a good laugh with this one!

  22. #97
    The Legendary Hero Link28469's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    827
    I'm glad to hear this worked for you. If you have problems with any other MediaFire folders, just tell me and I'll give you the direct links to the files.
    By the way, I use the Opera browser, and sometimes Opera Turbo will make MF folders not display properly.

  23. #98
    Onion Kid
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    25
    I'll be sure to tell you!

    And nice work! Excellent audio, and in STEREO!!!

  24. #99
    action bastard _swordsman_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    somewhere in space.
    Posts
    15

    great work!

    thank you!

  25. #100
    Grand Shriner Rogue_Ledr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    252
    Thanks so much again for this.

    I really hope we can get a version of this without the annoying audience.

    I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Link for not only his hard work for not only recording and providing us with this, but also working so hard to make it as good as he can.

    I realize there are limitations to what can be done, but there are some REALLY annoying parts. Like on the Karariko Village part where for some odd reason the audience starts laughing. I'm like "WTF is so funny you tools!!?!?!?!".

    Can't the people who go to these Zelda concerts please STFU for 5 minutes while the music plays?

    Anyway, thanks again Link. You are a true gentlemen. I am glad to see you are not only generous with your time, but also comprehend proper codes of conduct for a concert like this.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •