My Additional Notes Here

For those of you who are really curious and want to know more, I will write my informal thoughts here and may update occasionally. Those who are most likely to use my service are those who believe and understand how certain "things unseen" can be powerful forces, much like how propaganda (which is 98% of truths and 2% of hidden agenda) changes the direction of a nation and world. They are also people who: 1. Admire well-done things, 2. Are knowledgeable, aware and informed about how carefully-engineered sound consciously and subconsciously has a profound influence within the listener, often covertly.

The audio processing that I have constructed is a combination of digital tools I have painstakingly auditioned, selected, modified, and calibrated to control their behavior toward arriving at the results I desired. The processes I use have nothing to do with the exciter type tools that some broadcasters are using. There's is a more utilitarian sound. Mine is more of a designer sound.

Comparing this treated audio to the original audio will not "blow you away". If the result accomplished that, anything more than brief listening would soon cause "listeners fatigue". My actual result is more subtle. Subtle is powerful in this case. The advantage sets in over time. It begins to take hold at around 11 seconds and continues throughout the listening process, sometimes subconsciously. Many people notice an enticing sound quality. What they are hearing is actually not entirely present in the sound but rather added by the auditory part of the brain in response to certain waveform actions in the audio. That is part of the science of psychoacoustics, which I won't go into here. I almost believe I shouldn't have mentioned it because what I understand about this topic is dwarfed by what I don't understand. But if you are curious and want MORE, look up "missing fundamental" "frequency masking" and the subject of psychoacoustics in general. I will point out that we do not hear pure sound the way it travels through the air. Our brain modifies it and completely rearranges it. I would guess that if we could hear sound in its pure state, it would sound ghastly. Speech would not be understandable because we would only hear the formant intervals instead of the formant sounds. Music would be a muddle of unpleasant noise.

The specific sound flavoring that results from my recipe of processes is very elusive but I don't have a monopoly on it. I am aware of only two other sources in the world that can produce this audio mastering result. One is in a most southeastern part of the U.S. where commercials for some of the big brand names are made. The other may be in between Russia or somewhere that direction. Then there is me. In the southern U.S.

There are two pet terms that experienced audio people use that the average individual may misunderstand or get confused. These are not technical terms. They are; tone and color. When these words are used to describe sound, they are not the same. Tone has been long used to describe the resulting sound of variations in frequency distribution. Color, on the other hand, is something different. It is the resultant sound of reshaping waveforms. This shaping can be applied on the x and y axis of the timeline. The variety of "color" is infinite, interesting and usually indescribable. This color is the realm I work in.

I can't afford to conduct scientific focus grouping on this sound process but I think it has been done by a major video producer's sound contractor, who uses this type of processing. I have done a couple of non-scientific tests on people that indicates they are somewhat more captivated by material treated by this audio. Also, I have done a little demonstration asking the question, "how much would you pay for this microphone?" after playing non-treated sound. Then, "how much would you pay for THIS microphone?" after playing the treated audio. The treated gets the better price. It definitely sounds like a more expensive microphone.