[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Iain Churches wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

What the hell is the point of monitoring 'perceived loudness'. Have
these people not got EARS to do that ? Measureing 'loudness' with a
meter
makes about as much sense as giving a fish a bicycle and has always
struck me
as being about the lamest excuse you could imagine for using a
backward,

technically flawed method !´

It gives a post-production engineer, with the
skill to interpret what he sees, a better
indication of what the compressor is doing
to the overal dynamic that any PPM ever could.

Don't be ridiculous !

Compressors have GAIN REDUCTION METERS. That's what you monitor, not
damn
stupid VU meters.

Indeed they do. (Don't shout - this is an audio group)
The point was that he used the VU to show what he called
the increase in apparent loudness of the signal. This is
probably easier for the client to understand than a gain
reduction meter.

I think it's completely half-assed myself. In a mix you won't see anything
of
value about the level of compression being applied at all.



It is not difficult to understand why he would prefer to
show his clients how, by adding compression, the
"perceived overall listening level" (as he calls it) rises,
as shown on the VU, rather than point out the
"gain reduction" as indicated by the compressor.

When one is working with a pop client whose
objective is to produce a CD as loud and as
punchy as it can possibly be, the term
"gain reduction" is not one that would be used
if the matter can be illustrated in another way.

Simple psychology, Graham.

This is the classical case of comparison of a glass
half full with one that is half empty.

Iain