SPECWEB (Now 2.2)

[woody]

Sorry but SpecWeb is windows only. I haven't tried any of the methods for running windows programs on a mac so don't know if you can get it working or not.

However, there is a version of "Spec" (requires Plogue Bidule) that does run on a mac, so that route is available for sure.

http://www.surroundbyus.com/sbu/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=216

You can get a demo version of Plogue Bidule here: http://www.plogue.com/downloads/ That will work until Jan 15th. Usually shortly before or after that there will be another demo version that will work for 3 months (and of course, you can always buy a copy).

Thanks Zee. Some good advice as I'm sure I'm not alone here.
I am salivating reading the apparently successful attempts of others. Pity there's no tried and tested Mac workaround.

For background I have purchased Plogue Bidule in the past, but got nowhere with it ( on an old windows laptop).

From memory the issue was:

A. A defective real time DTS encoder to monitor mix/progress; and
B. the steep learning curve.

I don't know whether any of the issues above would now be resolved based on your advice.

I am working pn the presumption that the mac would have the ability to pass audio direct to my receiver via HDMI, which would appear to be a solution to point A above?

Bummer.

Regards
Woody

 

[edisonbaggins]

I find the commands confusing. Perhaps the web interface is more intuitive? Has anybody tried it?
If this is going to suit me, adjustments must be feasible.
For instance, my test of Rush - Vapor Trails put Neil's hi hat just over my right shoulder, which bugs me.
Separation and other elements of the "mix" we're cool, so I'd like to be able to tweak without taking a college class on SpecWeb.

 

[HomerJAU]

I tried this successfully while experimenting:

Open the SpecWeb.ini file in Notepad, make one or two adjustments save the ini file (but leave it open). Drag and Drop a file onto the 'Play' shortcut on your desktop. Listen.

Now make a couple more changes to the ini file and save. Rinse and repeat until it's at your optimimum.

 

[ji eff]

I just flushed everything I did today.... Seems I can't get a simple command line right @: ...dammit, first I tried -Rx=+6.0, then -Rx=0, only to realize it's supposed to be formulated (I think) -R0

Give me knobs :ugham:

 

[zeerround]

I just flushed everything I did today.... Seems I can't get a simple command line right @: ...dammit, first I tried -Rx=+6.0, then -Rx=0, only to realize it's supposed to be formulated (I think) -R0

Give me knobs :ugham:

It seems like folks are not using the web interface? Drag a drop a stereo file on the "SpecWeb Play" icon and your default web browser will open up with "knobs" in it, and you input file(s) will start to play.

Caveats: 1) Assumes your default browser is NOT IE (but is chrome, firefox, or windows 10 edge). If you default browser is IE, you'll need to edit the properties of the "Spec Web Play" icon (or the ini file) to include the path to supported browser.

2) Assumes the first sound device SpecWeb finds is a surround device. If not you'll need to edit the properties of the "Spec Web Play" icon (or the ini file) to tell it the number of your surround sound device as seen by SpecWeb. The sound devices and their numbers are listed when you drop a file on SpecWeb, at the bottom.

Once you've got that working, you can make your changes in real time (except for zag) and hear the results. When you're happy, press the record button, and your file will be recorded with those settings, or first press save, to save your settings as an ini file, then press record.

oh, and yes "x" as in "Rx" is supposed to be the value, so -R-1.0 would be Rears 1.0 dB lower than fronts.

Re: setting Zag live, since zag (automatic gain) is a 2nd pass, you can't hear the the changes live, but you CAN mess with the gain controls on the different channels, then observe the resulting RMS difference between C and Fronts and Fronts and Rears in the meters, then use that as a measure of how to set ZAG.

 

[skherbeck]

This software is a game changer. I started out last year as a collector of commercially available surround titles, and while these titles, when mixed from master tapes, are by far the best surround experience, I've often felt underwhelmed by the selection of titles available... most of my favorite artists/titles haven't had proper surround releases so I've had to expand my musical tastes (which was actually a great experience). Then I heard about upmixes by people with mysterious names like "DKA" and "Holland123" and "PoRFiN" and "TOUP" and at first I thought "whatever"... But then a friend let me hear an upmix of Abbey Road and I was hooked... so I took the next step which was to learn how to download torrent files; within months I collected several hundred upmixes; some of it was crap, some was fantastic... And the best ones were all made using Spec software from SBU. I went to that website, and was overwhelmed by the technical aspects of making an upmix, so I resolved to accept whatever upmixes and commercial releases the world offered me.
And now we have SpecWeb. And I can honestly say the results I'm getting with this software are as good as the best upmixes I've downloaded... and now anyone can have those "desert island albums" they've always cherished in reasonable surround sound. No, an upmix can't compete with a well mixed album from source tapes, but sometimes an upmix is much more enjoyable than a wonky quad mix ("The Joker" by Steve Miller Band comes to mind). I want to say thank you to all of the "upmixers" I mentioned and especially the creators of this software for blazing the trail that has led to this night, my feet up, my sound system blazing, and my ears smiling as my favorite album plays UPMIXED BY ME!!! yeah...

 

[HomerJAU]

I did about a dozen of my favourite non-surround releases today. Some from mid-eighties first release CDs with high DR, some from stereo SACDs and a couple from hi-res stereo vinyl sources.

Generally I'm very happy with the outcomes but there are a few tracks that need further tweaking with some strange effects happening. I'll play around some more on these later this week before doing any more as it has ruined a few tracks.

I also updated a few up-mixed tracks in my ongoing 'Seventies Acoustic Guitar Greats' surround compilation (Getting on to 40 tracks most of which are real surround).

I created another 'Hits' compilation of about 25 tracks I love from my stereo only album collection (10cc, Gerry Rafferty, Dire Straits, Supertramp, UB40, John Paul Young, Toto etc). Stuff I never thought I'd ever hear in surround!

I plan to donate as it looks like a really viable tool!!

 

[GOS]

I did about a dozen of my favourite non-surround releases today. Some from mid-eighties first release CDs with high DR, some from stereo SACDs and a couple from hi-res stereo vinyl sources.

Generally I'm very happy with the outcomes but there are a few tracks that need further tweaking with some strange effects happening. I'll play around some more on these later this week before doing any more as it has ruined a few tracks.

I also updated a few up-mixed tracks in my ongoing 'Seventies Acoustic Guitar Greats' surround compilation (Getting on to 40 tracks most of which are real surround).

I created another 'Hits' compilation of about 25 tracks I love from my stereo only album collection (10cc, Gerry Rafferty, Dire Straits, Supertramp, UB40, John Paul Young, Toto etc). Stuff I never thought I'd ever hear in surround!

I plan to donate as it looks like a really viable tool!!

I agree - I have found many great sounding upmixes...but I also did Running With The Devil by Van Halen and it absolutely butchered it.
I too will donate as I think it's a great and fun tool. Tool? Did I call someone a tool? lmao

 

[ji eff]

Just an observation: As ZAG works volumes in a "relative" manner depending on the content, I've gotten better results if I work an album as a single file, instead on a track-by-track basis.. i.e. Let say you stumble on a solo guitar & vocal track, mostly center focused: since there is not much bass content and sides information, if you process the track by itself with the same settings you used on the rest of the album, it will most likely end up very "boomy" and drenched in reverb from the rears, as the LFE channel and rears will be cranked up a lot more to get to the same relative-to-fronts volume.

I'm sure if someone has a lot of time on his hands, working track-by-track and tweeking everything for each track will give optimal results, but I don't have that amount of free time, nor the patience, as there is a LOT of my CDs I want to upmix!

The default settings weren't chosen by chance: they shine on almost everything I throw at them, I only added the command line " -E0 ", as I love to hear the sub "round" everything up.


To the developpers of SpecWeb :brew

One happy camper

 

[zeerround]

Just an observation: As ZAG works volumes in a "relative" manner depending on the content, I've gotten better results if I work an album as a single file, instead on a track-by-track basis.. i.e. Let say you stumble on a solo guitar & vocal track, mostly center focused: since there is not much bass content and sides information, if you process the track by itself with the same settings you used on the rest of the album, it will most likely end up very "boomy" and drenched in reverb from the rears, as the LFE channel and rears will be cranked up a lot more to get to the same relative-to-fronts volume.

I'm sure if someone has a lot of time on his hands, working track-by-track and tweeking everything for each track will give optimal results, but I don't have that amount of free time, nor the patience, as there is a LOT of my CDs I want to upmix!

The default settings weren't chosen by chance: they shine on almost everything I throw at them, I only added the command line " -E0 ", as I love to hear the sub "round" everything up.


To the developpers of SpecWeb :brew

One happy camper

With version 1.0, and doing full albums at one go, you might run into the 4GB limit for wav files with the intermediate file when using Zag. I already have a fix for this and can release any time. I was just waiting to see if anyone turned up any other bugs this week.

The symptom would manifest as the audio not playing all the way to the end in your finished track.

 

[ji eff]

Just stumbled upon a black sheep in my CD collection: Portishead... mostly center information, with occasional stereo elements, downright jumping at you when upmixed. Decided to try bypassing ZAG altogether: Balance !! Just have to remember to take note of the peak values before closing the application, as the resulting file needs a little volume increase.

ArcTan by itself provides separation and distribution to the various speakers, without messing with the natural balance found in the original mix: I think I'll try it on everything I've done so far... so, let's begin, yet again... @:

 

[zeerround]

Just stumbled upon a black sheep in my CD collection: Portishead... mostly center information, with occasional stereo elements, downright jumping at you when upmixed. Decided to try bypassing ZAG altogether: Balance !! Just have to remember to take note of the peak values before closing the application, as the resulting file needs a little volume increase.

ArcTan by itself provides separation and distribution to the various speakers, without messing with the natural balance found in the original mix: I think I'll try it on everything I've done so far... so, let's begin, yet again... @:

A feature I want to implement in SpecWeb (Already implemented in beta versions of the full "Spec") is "normalization only", where it wouldn't change the channel to channel levels but only insure that the loudest peak = the output setting.

 

[ji eff]

A feature I want to implement in SpecWeb (Already implemented in beta versions of the full "Spec") is "normalization only", where it wouldn't change the channel to channel levels but only insure that the loudest peak = the output setting.

That would be sweet ! :banana:

I'm already thinking of looking into the full Spec version, if within my budget range. What this software achieves is so far ahead of what most receivers can do! No "dulling" the sound, at all!

 

[ji eff]

I don't want to swamp the thread with my posts, but after a few tests, I realized that Portishead was indeed the black sheep in the flock... Working with ZAG does give more interesting and aggressive results on the majority of cases.

 

[HomerJAU]

A feature I want to implement in SpecWeb (Already implemented in beta versions of the full "Spec") is "normalization only", where it wouldn't change the channel to channel levels but only insure that the loudest peak = the output setting.

Hi zeerround.

A couple questions:

Are we putting excessive load on your web server by doing many conversions? I presume the heavy work is being done locally. I have a couple SSD drives and the conversions seem to fly along, but I'm worried the web traffic may cause you issues.

You mention processing an entire album as one file. All my albums are split into individual FLAC files. Can I drag and drop a cue file to process as a 'single set' to balance as suggested?

Also may I post a short sound clip (just a few seconds) to highlight an issue with a mix and get your recommendations for settings that would fix it? I guess others can learn too.

 

[MC Maniac]

You mention processing an entire album as one file. All my albums are split into individual FLAC files. Can I drag and drop a cue file to process as a 'single set' to balance as suggested?

All my music is in individual Flac songs and I dont need or have cue files - just drop all the stereo songs on the SPECWEB icon in one go, and it runs all songs through the same settings..

 

[HomerJAU]

All my music is in individual Flac songs and I dont need or have cue files - just drop all the stereo songs on the SPECWEB icon in one go, and it runs all songs through the same settings..

Yes I have been dragging multiple files. My question was related to this comment earlier about processing a single file for an album:

Just an observation: As ZAG works volumes in a "relative" manner depending on the content, I've gotten better results if I work an album as a single file, instead on a track-by-track basis.. i.e. Let say you stumble on a solo guitar & vocal track, mostly center focused: since there is not much bass content and sides information, if you process the track by itself with the same settings you used on the rest of the album, it will most likely end up very "boomy" and drenched in reverb from the rears, as the LFE channel and rears will be cranked up a lot more to get to the same relative-to-fronts volume.

......

 

[HomerJAU]

I find the commands confusing. Perhaps the web interface is more intuitive? Has anybody tried it?
If this is going to suit me, adjustments must be feasible.

None of the web interface controls work for me during 'Play'. Also be nice when the controls are fixed to have a stop/pause button.

 

[HomerJAU]

Here's a problem I'm having. This is about 10 seconds of just the right rear after a SpecWeb conversions (flac file about 1000kb). Their is distortion/frequency cut-off going on, not sure what to tweak to sort it out. Any help appreciated.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B67BGVX7nHIlM1lJV0xOaC1QelU/view?usp=sharing

 

[GOS]

I have another question/concern. When I toss a file into the SPECWEB program and it goes ahead and makes a multi-flac version...it sticks those songs in the same folder as my original version. I wouldn't necessarily mind that except that when I then go to foobar to play, it lists the 2 verions of each song next to each other...and it's a hassle when you only want to play one version or the other.

I am very sure there is a way to change this, but I don't know. Let me also say that I even cut the multi versions out and placed them in their own folder and it still managed to put them all together in foobar.