Martin Tillman wrote:

Where is the evidence of this gawd-awful *restriction of dynamics* of
which you accuse me of wreaking against my WAVs?

Right in front of your eyes! It shows absolutely that you are
compressing the original. If you can't see it you really don't know
what you are looking for.

Yeah, I believe I'm on record as having stated there is some slight
*limiting* going on there to avoid clipping. Note however too that this
is the loudest song on the CD. All other songs would not suffer from
any limiting at all because of this +5dB boost in RMS level.

5 or so peaks being slightly limited in a single WAV does not offset the
advantages of boosting the average RMS level of the entire file. It is
a compromise I am perfectly willing to accept.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:23 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Your definition of normalise is flawed, as is your practice of it.

Yes, I know. It's grossly misdefined in my "normalize" manpage by the
author of the program itself. That's why. So blame *me* *again* for my
misunderstanding of the term, why dontcha?

Well, you keep using it, even now.

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

Just a minor terminology quibble, Myke. Filtration is what
is done to sewage. I'm an old E.E. with a DSP upgrade and
have never heard the word applied to signals. "Filtering"
is what you want.

Hahahaha!!! As they say, "my bad!" :-D

Well here's what my gDict for Linux has to say about this issue:

Filtration Fil*tra"tion, n. Cf. F. filtration.
The act or process of filtering; the mechanical separation of
a liquid from the undissolved particles floating in it.

So, I guess we're both right!

The answer is clearly "yes and no"! ;-)

You just don't give up a point do you. :-) In the world of
processing signals, analog or digital, it's "filtering."
Period, point, dot.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Martin Tillman wrote:

Where is the evidence of this gawd-awful *restriction of dynamics* of
which you accuse me of wreaking against my WAVs?

Right in front of your eyes! It shows absolutely that you are
compressing the original. If you can't see it you really don't know
what you are looking for.

Yeah, I believe I'm on record as having stated there is some slight
*limiting* going on there to avoid clipping. Note however too that this
is the loudest song on the CD. All other songs would not suffer from
any limiting at all because of this +5dB boost in RMS level.

But you are diverting from your compilation scenario, where you normalise
each track to -10dB.

geoff

Bob Cain wrote:

Filtration Fil*tra"tion, n. Cf. F. filtration.
The act or process of filtering; the mechanical separation of
a liquid from the undissolved particles floating in it.

You just don't give up a point do you. :-) In the world of
processing signals, analog or digital, it's "filtering."
Period, point, dot.

Well, if it's any consolation to you, Bob, I *can* see it from your
perspective as well as from my own. :-)

I just thought it was funny to see that the first half of the first
definition I was able to locate seemed to support both your and my
preferred usages of the word - and my usage was listed first.

This really did make me laugh out loud. My wife had to ask me what was
so funny. Which then meant I had to *explain*... And god how I hate to
*explain* things!!! ;-)

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:

But you are diverting from your compilation scenario, where you normalise
each track to -10dB.

You know, I really do wish that instead of everybody wanting to jump my
ass and call me sssttyyyeeewwwpid, they could have just asked me what I
meant whenever I used the term "batch normalize". Having been using
this application for such a long time, I didn't know it was confusing
anybody else.

Back to the Normalize man page we go:

MIX MODE

This mode is made especially for making mixed CD's and the like.
You want every song on the mix to be the same volume, but it
doesn't matter if they are the same volume as the songs on some
other mix you made last week. In mix mode, average level of all
the files is computed, and each file is separately normalized to
this average volume.


BATCH MODE

When operating on a group of unrelated files, you usually want all
of them at the same level, and this is the default behavior.
However, a group of music files all from the same album is generally
meant to be listened to at the relative volumes they were recorded
at. In batch mode, all the specified files are considered to be part
of a single album and their relative volumes are preserved. This
is done by averaging the volumes of all the files, computing a
single adjustment from that, and applying the same adjustment to
all the files. Some analysis is also done so that files with
volumes that appear to be statistical aberrations are not
considered in the average. This is useful if you have albums
(like many of the author's) in which there is one "quiet song"
that throws off the average.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:28:54 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:



Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

Just a minor terminology quibble, Myke. Filtration is what
is done to sewage. I'm an old E.E. with a DSP upgrade and
have never heard the word applied to signals. "Filtering"
is what you want.

Hahahaha!!! As they say, "my bad!" :-D

Well here's what my gDict for Linux has to say about this issue:

Filtration Fil*tra"tion, n. Cf. F. filtration.
The act or process of filtering; the mechanical separation of
a liquid from the undissolved particles floating in it.

So, I guess we're both right!

The answer is clearly "yes and no"! ;-)

You just don't give up a point do you. :-) In the world of
processing signals, analog or digital, it's "filtering."
Period, point, dot.

Perhaps in the US, but here in the UK both terms are applied. I've
certainly seen references to 4th order filtration, which is not I
believe to be found in sewage farms..... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:52:14 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

Per Stromgren wrote:

Do you hate books that much, Myke?

I own a huge personal library of programming manuals persuant to my
purpose as a web-designer and Linux system/database administrator, etc..

Manuals are not what I mean by a "book"! That is probably your
"problem" right there. If one only reads problem-solving "books" (as
manuals tend to be) you will never get to the point where you can
solve problems all by yourself. As a university teacher, I know this,
believe me. You need a bit of theory that is not connected to a
product. The man page for the normalize program is a good case in
point: it gave you the wrong defintion of "normalize", at least one
that is never heard of outside that product.


Too many demands on my time for programming related needs throughout the
past 4 years have not left time for any other kinds of book-related
studies. My needs along these lines are very few and far-between.

The discussion we have on usenet say something different to me. You
can't be *that* busy right now, you have written 517 postings to the
usenet in the last two weeks, over 35 per day. This according to
Google Groups, I do not know how they calculate cross-postings.


If not, your public library could probably supply you with a book that
takes you thru this a lot faster than it takes to ask all these
questions on Usenet.

Well, the chart isn't the answer to everything I'm trying to find. It's
just a good, solid clue towards the solution - much closer and a *lot*
more helpful than all that other sometimes obvious stuff that's been
being discussed which while possible true is completely beside the point
and tangential at best.

As I have read your threads with interest, I have seen that people has
tried to give you some help in that they have pointed out some obvious
misconception of yours. But is only you that can do anything about
learning these things. We can only point it out. Sorry.

Per.

(This a follow-up to Myke, not Martin. Sorry for any confusion)

Myke wrote:
In in general, most
people (including me) tend to believe that louder is better ... because
with loudness comes clarity.

Wasn't it Rainbow that said "Our single aim in life is to get louder!"
You can not discuss anything audio with people that has this as a
target.

Per.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Perhaps in the US, but here in the UK both terms are applied. I've
certainly seen references to 4th order filtration, which is not I
believe to be found in sewage farms..... :-)

Now Stewart, didja really hafta go and add insult to injury like that? :-)

*LOL*,

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Based upon what I interpret "(multiply PCM data)" to mean, it's not linear.


Mulitiplication by a constant is a linear operation.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

This really did make me laugh out loud. My wife had to ask me what was
so funny. Which then meant I had to *explain*... And god how I hate to
*explain* things!!! ;-)

You wanna hear something funny, since that post in which I
mentioned sewage I've received two spams relative to home
sewage processing systems. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Richard D Pierce wrote:

Yup, it makes it abundantly clear. Not a single reference text
on signal processing principles or theory. Nothing, nada.

The nonsense all makes perfect sense, now.

I've maintained from the start that I'm not an audio professional,
however, certain aspects of my work do force me cross over into that area.

I don't need any **** because of it.

Myke


--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

In article ,
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
Richard D Pierce wrote:

Yup, it makes it abundantly clear. Not a single reference text
on signal processing principles or theory. Nothing, nada.

The nonsense all makes perfect sense, now.

I've maintained from the start that I'm not an audio professional,

Your effort at maintaining that is really unnecessary, as this
fact has been abundantly clear from the outset.

however, certain aspects of my work do force me cross over into that area.

Indeed that may be true. Certain aspects of my work force me to
cross over into areas where I might have sufficient knowledge.
When that happens, I don't pretend that my misinterpretations
represent sufficient knowledge.

I don't need any **** because of it.

Then why give it?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

StArSeEd wrote:

So write your own LAME frontend and *make* it a knob.

Because that's not the kind of programming with which I'm professionally
or even personally familiar. I could probably pick it up with a little
practice but time so far will not allow it.

All languages share common concepts but just because I speak English
doesn't mean I can also speak Chinese.

Yes. --scale 2.0 = +6dB. --scale 4.0 = +12dB.
Likewise, --scale 0.5 = -6db and --scale 0.25 = -12dB.

Thank you. That helps a *lot*.

Decibels are not linear.

Thanks again. I didn't know that. Why didn't Richard D. Pierce take
time to be *helpful* by telling me *this* instead of opting to delight
in ripping off my head and ****ting down my neck for not owning a single
reference text on signal processing principles or theory? Am I correct
to assume he's just here to be a thorn in other peoples' sides like I
always *expect* Usenet "people" to be? If so, I'm not *surprised*.

Based upon what I interpret "(multiply PCM data)" to mean, it's not linear.

Now yer "Log"gin'.

Yeah, and I've got a "decent" mathematical background too so the
concepts here aren't exactly something I'd have too much trouble picking
up with a little practice. Although without a background in
engineering, logarithms have never been very useful in everyday life.

I'm much better with internet-based, creative/logical problem-solving
involving database structures and web-applications and user interface
designs, etc.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Richard D Pierce wrote:

Amongst your "extensive library,"

Oh, *now* I'm *bragging* about my "extensive library" is it?

You obviously fail to see the reason why I posted that list.

Chill out.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Richard D Pierce wrote:

Indeed that may be true. Certain aspects of my work force me to
cross over into areas where I might have sufficient knowledge.
When that happens, I don't pretend that my misinterpretations
represent sufficient knowledge.

Man are you behind the curve on the development of this conversation or
what?

Your kind of crap is exactly why I packed up and moved the discussion
elsewhere.

We've actually arrived at some fairly decent conclusions as a result of
it too.

Get lost.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

In article ,
Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:
Richard D Pierce wrote:

Indeed that may be true. Certain aspects of my work force me to
cross over into areas where I might have sufficient knowledge.
When that happens, I don't pretend that my misinterpretations
represent sufficient knowledge.

Your kind of crap is exactly why I packed up and moved the discussion
elsewhere.

Bye bye!

Get lost.

Kind sir, it would seem you've done that for us.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Richard D Pierce wrote:


--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

This really did make me laugh out loud. My wife had to ask me what was
so funny. Which then meant I had to *explain*... And god how I hate to
*explain* things!!! ;-)

You wanna hear something funny, since that post in which I
mentioned sewage I've received two spams relative to home
sewage processing systems. :-)


**** ! Really !


geoff

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:09 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

StArSeEd wrote:

So write your own LAME frontend and *make* it a knob.

Because that's not the kind of programming with which I'm professionally
or even personally familiar. I could probably pick it up with a little
practice but time so far will not allow it.

All languages share common concepts but just because I speak English
doesn't mean I can also speak Chinese.

Yes. --scale 2.0 = +6dB. --scale 4.0 = +12dB.
Likewise, --scale 0.5 = -6db and --scale 0.25 = -12dB.

Thank you. That helps a *lot*.

Decibels are not linear.

Thanks again. I didn't know that.

WHAAAAAT? Oh phukkke, just forget everything..................

Why didn't Richard D. Pierce take
time to be *helpful* by telling me *this* instead of opting to delight
in ripping off my head and ****ting down my neck for not owning a single
reference text on signal processing principles or theory? Am I correct
to assume he's just here to be a thorn in other peoples' sides like I
always *expect* Usenet "people" to be? If so, I'm not *surprised*.

Jeez, maybe he gave you credit for knowing one of the most basic facts
in all of audio? Silly Dick.............

Based upon what I interpret "(multiply PCM data)" to mean, it's not linear.

Now yer "Log"gin'.

Yeah, and I've got a "decent" mathematical background too so the
concepts here aren't exactly something I'd have too much trouble picking
up with a little practice. Although without a background in
engineering, logarithms have never been very useful in everyday life.

Actually, not knowing that deciBels are logarithmic means that you
actually have no *useful* mathematical background to speak of in this
forum.................

I'm much better with internet-based, creative/logical problem-solving
involving database structures and web-applications and user interface
designs, etc.

Oh, you mean you can design real kool websites with like animated
flames and stuff? Woweeeeee...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Oh, you mean you can design real kool websites with like animated
flames and stuff? Woweeeeee...................

Yep. And the money's good too. Woweeeeee...................

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:29:09 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:
Decibels are not linear.

Thanks again. I didn't know that.

Yeah, and I've got a "decent" mathematical background too so the
concepts here aren't exactly something I'd have too much trouble picking
up with a little practice.

Okay, so it's not the "decent" mathematical background that
s giving you trouble picking stuff up. So, what might you
specualte IS giving you these seemingly insurmountable
difficulties?

But, wait! The mere fact the assumption that:

F(x) = k * x

is a NON-linear operation IS INDEED A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS MISTAKE
even to someone who has a basic background in high school
algebra! And, oh by the way, the same person who made it through
that high-school algebra class that would know that that
multiplication by a constant is a LINEAR operation would also
have likely encountered logarithms as well.

Although without a background in
engineering, logarithms have never been very useful in everyday life.

Given that the sensitivity of the ear and the eye to changes in
intensity is very nicely approximated to a first degree by
logarithmic functions, yes, I suppose you COULD assume that
knowledge of such is not very useful in everyday life.

I'm much better with internet-based, creative/logical problem-solving
involving database structures and web-applications and user interface
designs, etc.

Ah, okay, so you're not a real software engineer, then. That's
cool, it explains quite a bit.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote...
--

Would that all his posts were as pithy.
Plonk to you, sir.

Richard Crowley wrote:


--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:


--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-


Is this '--' stuff your new skill ?

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

Is this '--' stuff your new skill ?

No.

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood:
Lord Hasenpfeffer
--
Is this '--' stuff your new skill ?

It's actually '-- ', the standard delimiter for UseNet and e-mail signatures.

-StArSeEd
--
dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979
IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins
Email: am
ICQ UIN: 1711589

StArSeEd wrote:
Geoff Wood:

Lord Hasenpfeffer

--

Is this '--' stuff your new skill ?


It's actually '-- ', the standard delimiter for UseNet and e-mail signatures.

-StArSeEd

Hehehe... Thanks. (And, yes, you're right.)

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Pete Carney wrote:

The first image shows the original at the location of the max peak in the
file. Then the second image is proper normalization in CoolEdit 2000 of the
exact same time frame. Then the third is what the command line program
"Normalize" does to the file.

With what parameters?
Normalize doesn't just do one thing and nothing else.

Weren't you claiming that this was *exactly* what it did with the MFSL
disc? That it just increased *every* sample until the peaks were just
below 0dB FS, with no other effect *whatever*?

No way. I said nothing of the sort.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Martin Tillman wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:22:54 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

But Capitol's version's OK 'cuz everybody's heard of them.

No one has said as far as I recall.

Nobody seems to be *avoiding* it.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Martin Tillman wrote:

And here are two MP3 samples in a zip archive:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/audio/All_Right.zip

Pity we can't see the original,

Pity ****. I've posted links to the screenshots to, so you *can* if
you'll just bother to look.

or that you didn't encode to a higher bitrate. However, despite that,
there is very little doubt in my mind that your 'after' has limiting
applied to it in order to make it sound louder.

Yep, the only difference between them is that one is louder. Muppet.

Duh. Buttweej.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 19:55:58 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Yep, the only difference between them is that one is louder. Muppet.

Duh. Buttweej.

So I'll take that to mean you won't attempt to identify where the joins
are in case that proves you wrong in public.

Martin Tillman wrote:

So I'll take that to mean you won't attempt to identify where the joins
are in case that proves you wrong in public.

I'm so afraid of being proven wrong in public.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:25:38 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Martin Tillman wrote:

So I'll take that to mean you won't attempt to identify where the joins
are in case that proves you wrong in public.

I'm so afraid of being proven wrong in public.

So will you take the challenge and identify the edits between the
original and your infinitely improved version of it?

cyrus the virus wrote:

the normalization thing depends on the process. from the few times and
few apps i've used that use normalization, it scans the entire track for
the loudest point and raises the volume level so that loudest point is
at zero. there is no sort of clipping/compressing/limiting going on.

Some tests with Normalize being conducted in conjunction with some
CoolEdit Pro users in another newsgroup have revealed that Normalize
does this same thing. It's determines the Maximum RMS level and works
with/from that rather than the Average RMS level as everybody here was
thinking previously. That's why even when I push it 2dB "hotter" than
it would normally on its own by default, any limiting that occurs is
minimal at best.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

cyrus the virus wrote:

and this perception is exactly why the loudness wars even started.
volume and quality is really trivial when the music actually affects
you.

Well, I've always been against the idea of doing obvious harm to
existing recordings. When I settled for my preferred -10dBFS setting, I
was actually coming back down from even louder settings which I'd tried
and rejected because I could hear the difference in the music and felt
that I was "pushing too far".

I'm not into overloud music at all. I'm just not into underloud music
either. -10dBFS gives me what I consider to be a nice, happy
medium-loud volume that is in no way offensive to the listener.

Being a foreigner to the audio.tech community (and happily so, I might
add), I completely missed the "loudness wars" which I've come to hear so
much about lately.

Who won?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

cyrus the virus wrote:

the normalization thing depends on the process. from the few times
and few apps i've used that use normalization, it scans the entire
track for the loudest point and raises the volume level so that
loudest point is at zero. there is no sort of
clipping/compressing/limiting going on.

Some tests with Normalize being conducted in conjunction with some
CoolEdit Pro users in another newsgroup have revealed that Normalize
does this same thing. It's determines the Maximum RMS level and works
with/from that rather than the Average RMS level as everybody here was
thinking previously. That's why even when I push it 2dB "hotter" than
it would normally on its own by default, any limiting that occurs is
minimal at best.

Cool Edit Pro bases normalization on peak levels.

If you work in Cool Edit Pro's 32 bit mode, there is no limiting at any
reasonable level including many dBs above nominal FS. It's working in
floating point!

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote in message ...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Sure I did, and just how do you think you can 'normalise' to a higher
average level *without* modifying the transfer curve, i.e. applying
compansion and/or limiting?

Well, after having read the Normalize F.A.Q. you should know that
Average RMS isn't what's being "Normalized"; it's the *Maximum* RMS
level that is.

This statement, all by itself, shows the patent absurdity of "Lords"
position, illustrating how technically inept he is. The terms
"average RMS" and "maximum RMS" are meaningless: RMS is RMS. There
is but a single RMS figure for a sognal computed over the interval.
There is no "maximum" or "avergae" RMS.

RMS means one VERY specific and well defined thing: the "root-mean-
square" value of a time-variant signal. It has a specific and fully
deterministic means of getting there. It's not even a definition
unique to signals, indeed, it is a STATISTICAL terms with the exact
definition of:

RMS = sqrt ( sum F(Xn)/n )

That's it, there ain't no "average RMS" there ain't no "maximum RMS,"
there's RMS.

And should a signal over an interval me normalized by some factor
k, ALL values will be multuplied by precisely the same factor k,
regardless of their original value. Normaization is simple:

F(x) = k * x

I know *how* to make Normalize give me satisfactory results.

That's not clear, since you still have no clue what the normalize
process MEANS, and have no clue about the meaning of such fundamental
and, indeed, conceptually simple definitions like "RMS."

If the Average RMS were being adjusted you would have a point, but it's
not so you no longer do.

Since "average RMS" is a nonsense term, you have NO point.

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Sure I did, and just how do you think you can 'normalise' to a higher
average level *without* modifying the transfer curve, i.e. applying
compansion and/or limiting?


Time to reevaluate your attack strategy. Maybe this time you'll do some
homework on your own before you go about believing an admitted amateur
like me about such technical details.

His point stands regardless of whether the RMS level of the
file is determined from a peak region or averaged over the
whole file. The point is that to increase the level more
than than what would bring the largest instantaneous peak to
0 dB requires compression and/or limiting if clipping is to
be avoided.


If the Average RMS were being adjusted you would have a point, but it's
not so you no longer do. So go be rude to someone else for a change.

It is independant of that consideration. Try again.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein