[Mark]

On Jan 19, 9:23*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:

Here the masterer casts aspersion on Audition's metering, which I
always took to be a good meter, but anyway, it's an example of
something showing clips in Audition and the creator of the file is
saying there are no actual overs, FWIW.

What a load of crap, there is no "metering" necessary to rip a CD and
display the clipping in any wave editor. And any mastering engineer who
can't tell the CD is really clipped should be out of a job for being
technologically incompetent.

Hint: there is no one definition for an "over" because you can in fact
not measure how far over the signal has gone once it has clipped. *All
you can do is decide how many consecutive FS samples you consider an over,
and not everybody sets the limit at the same place.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

also there is NOT an exact 1 to 1 correspondence between the digital
sample values and the reconstructed analog waveform. It is easy to
demonstrate an un-clipped waveform that has no digital samples over
-1dBFS and still the analog reconstructed waveform exceeds 0 dBFS by a
few dB and is not necessarily clipped if the analog circuits have
sufficient headroom.

So that raises a question about the formal standard for metering
relative to 0 dBFS.

Is the formal definition of level refer to the waveform in the analog
domain or the samples in the digital domain. There was a discussion a
while ago, I think it was here on RAP, about the several dB possible
difference.

Mark