Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering http://service.tcgroup.tc/media/Leve..._AES109(1).pdf Interesting. I have noticed that in my better recorded stuff that the maximum levels tend to be at least -3dB and some as low as -6dB. There are a few songs I have that the audio level, in my poor acoustic environment, ranges from too low to too loud in my quieter moods. (kman eat your heart out) IIRC they were recorded at least 20 years ago. GW |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
gray_wolf wrote: "kman, eat your heart out"
I never said ALL engineers were guilty of bad practices, and besides, I came to realize two years ago where the "hot CD" edict came from. Semi-related, look at the levels on the DR Database entry for the 1987 CD release of Billy Joel's "The Stranger" http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/88060 Only a few of the tracks peak to within 1dB of full scale, with one track peaking 8dB below it(!) I OWN this edition, and it sounds just great on my players. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
(Joel, continued):
OTOH, all of the tracks on this this 2004 "remaster" of The Stranger appear to have been dynamically compressed and or peak-limited: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/94338 The sound is strained and edgy, and lacks the emotional cues of the original CD in my previous post. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Whoever decreed that ALL audio tracks MUST peak within
1/1,000,00dB of full scale must be on something strong!! |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10 Oct 2015, geoff wrote in
rec.audio.pro: Peaks touching 0dBFS (for one sample) has nothing to do with 'loudness', dynamic range, or "strained harsh sound", but you've finally grasped that, haven't you ?u. No, it will take at least another 2 years before he gets it. Actually 0dBFS peaks can cause problems on many DAs, but backing off half a dB should fix that. But not those symptoms you meantion. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 2:07:04 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
On 10 Oct 2015, geoff wrote in rec.audio.pro: Peaks touching 0dBFS (for one sample) has nothing to do with 'loudness', dynamic range, or "strained harsh sound", but you've finally grasped that, haven't you ?u. No, it will take at least another 2 years before he gets it. Actually 0dBFS peaks can cause problems on many DAs, but backing off half a dB should fix that. But not those symptoms you meantion. SIDEBAR I was mixing and mastering a project on Logic Express a year or so go. The tracks had been recorded by someone else. I was called in to mix and master.. I was having a particularly difficult time mixing one track. The vocal would sound pretty grungy during short sections, but no level indicators were showing anything alarming. Finally I put a compressor in the two mix and without any adjustment, it was showing 8 dB gain reduction! I did a global reduction of 8 dB and the vocal grunge stopped and the whole mix opened up. Somewhere in Logic Express a digital buss was being overloaded, but there was no place to see it. This doesn't happen in Pro Tools. Regards, Ty Ford |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Ty Ford wrote:
Finally I put a compressor in the two mix and without any adjustment, it wa= s showing 8 dB gain reduction! I did a global reduction of 8 dB and the voc= al grunge stopped and the whole mix opened up. Somewhere in Logic Express a= digital buss was being overloaded, but there was no place to see it. This doesn't happen in Pro Tools. Oh, it sure used to! Pro Tools 4 did that kind of thing all the time. These days all the Pro Tools busses are 32-bit floats, though, so they are next to impossible to overload. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Ty Ford wrote:
Somewhere in Logic Express a= digital buss was being overloaded, but there was no place to see it. This doesn't happen in Pro Tools. On 10/11/2015 10:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Oh, it sure used to! Pro Tools 4 did that kind of thing all the time. These days all the Pro Tools busses are 32-bit floats, though, so they are next to impossible to overload. Most DAWs from at least the last five years are like that. Even on the PreSonus StudioLive console, you can send 16 full scale channels to the main stereo bus, scrape the output meters off the pin with the main fader, and all the distortion goes away. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:40:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
gray_wolf wrote: "kman, eat your heart out" I never said ALL engineers were guilty of bad practices, and besides, I came to realize two years ago where the "hot CD" edict came from. Semi-related, look at the levels on the DR Database entry for the 1987 CD release of Billy Joel's "The Stranger" http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/88060 Only a few of the tracks peak to within 1dB of full scale, with one track peaking 8dB below it(!) Sounds like a darn fine reason to buy it!!! I'll cherish the multi-tracks, don't need a Sony Boy to remaster. Thanks. Jack I OWN this edition, and it sounds just great on my players. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Whoever decreed that ALL audio tracks MUST peak within 1/1,000,00dB of full scale must be on something strong!! I was told, no clipping! Otherwise, Loudness Wars would have never existed. Jack |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 12/10/2015 4:03 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-4, wrote: Whoever decreed that ALL audio tracks MUST peak within 1/1,000,00dB of full scale must be on something strong!! I was told, no clipping! Otherwise, Loudness Wars would have never existed. Jack Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. geoff |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 12/10/2015 4:27 PM, geoff wrote:
Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. Rubbish. To gain maximum "loudness", moderate to severe clipping is commonly used. Sure you could compress without clipping, but just look at the waveform of nearly every pop CD released in the last decade if you want to see clipping *IS* part of the loudness wars. Trevor. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 12/10/2015 7:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 12/10/2015 4:27 PM, geoff wrote: Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. Rubbish. To gain maximum "loudness", moderate to severe clipping is commonly used. Sure you could compress without clipping, but just look at the waveform of nearly every pop CD released in the last decade if you want to see clipping *IS* part of the loudness wars. Trevor. That's where generalisations are unhelpful when one is trying to be concise. No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. Loudness is achieved by extreme compression and/or limiting. If digital clipping occurs, that is a *technical error* - not inherently part of the hyper-compression process. And the same 'loudness' could be achieved without any clipping. That it may be a common error, or a deliberate misuse, is a different story. You can also clip to hell, and *not* have hyper-compression or loudness. Lots of distortion though. But you know that. geoff |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 12/10/2015 6:43 PM, geoff wrote:
On 12/10/2015 7:32 p.m., Trevor wrote: On 12/10/2015 4:27 PM, geoff wrote: Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. Rubbish. To gain maximum "loudness", moderate to severe clipping is commonly used. Sure you could compress without clipping, but just look at the waveform of nearly every pop CD released in the last decade if you want to see clipping *IS* part of the loudness wars. That's where generalisations are unhelpful when one is trying to be concise. No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, Have you actually looked? Or perhaps you don't buy any pop music? though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. So not relevant to what I said in that case. While I don't buy much pop myself, I have looked at very many of those disks to see why so many big artists (who can afford the best people) sound so bad. :-( Loudness is achieved by extreme compression and/or limiting. If digital clipping occurs, that is a *technical error* Yes, but I am NOT talking about theory, I am talking about what ANYONE with a DAW can see for themselves! - not inherently part of the hyper-compression process. And the same 'loudness' could be achieved without any clipping. No, it's already hyper-compressed before the gain is adjusted into clipping for that little bit more. That it may be a common error, or a deliberate misuse, is a different story. No, that it is deliberate *IS* what I was saying. You can also clip to hell, and *not* have hyper-compression or loudness. Lots of distortion though. But you know that. Right, I certainly know what CAN be done, and unfortunately the common practice these days is to do it BOTH ways to gain even more "loudness". ie. first compress the hell out of it, *AND* let it clip as much as they think they can get away with. Trevor. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 12/10/2015 9:48 p.m., Trevor wrote:
Right, I certainly know what CAN be done, and unfortunately the common practice these days is to do it BOTH ways to gain even more "loudness". ie. first compress the hell out of it, *AND* let it clip as much as they think they can get away with. I suggest that the clipping does more with harshness than loudness, and adds comparatively little in comparison to compression and limiting. ..... which makes it even more pointless and vile. geoff |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 1:27:32 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 12/10/2015 4:03 p.m., JackA wrote: On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-4, wrote: Whoever decreed that ALL audio tracks MUST peak within 1/1,000,00dB of full scale must be on something strong!! I was told, no clipping! Otherwise, Loudness Wars would have never existed. Jack Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. geoff __________ Actually, I was criticizing the need to have all tracks on a CD peak within 1/10 of full scale, for WHAT EVER reason. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 1:27:32 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 12/10/2015 4:03 p.m., JackA wrote: On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-4, wrote: Whoever decreed that ALL audio tracks MUST peak within 1/1,000,00dB of full scale must be on something strong!! I was told, no clipping! Otherwise, Loudness Wars would have never existed. Jack Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. Neither does 3kHz!!! Jack geoff |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:40:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
gray_wolf wrote: "kman, eat your heart out" I never said ALL engineers were guilty of bad practices, and besides, I came to realize two years ago where the "hot CD" edict came from. Semi-related, look at the levels on the DR Database entry for the 1987 CD release of Billy Joel's "The Stranger" http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/88060 Only a few of the tracks peak to within 1dB of full scale, with one track peaking 8dB below it(!) I OWN this edition, and it sounds just great on my players. Like dull sound, meet Keith!... http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds Jack |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
I was told, no clipping! Otherwise, Loudness Wars would have never existed. Jack Loudness and loudness wars have nothing to do with clipping. just like in a cascade of analog stages, there are various forms of clipping. In analog, you can clip the output stage or you can clip in the pre-amp. On a CD, you can clip by having several consecutive samples on the CD reach full scale or you can clip the signal at an earlier stage and have that clipped signal accurately recorded on the CD. In other words, you don't have to be at full scale to have clipping. It's still clipping either way. Mark |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
geoff wrote:
No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. The problem is that in the digital world, clipping is whatever you define it as. I tend to set metering so three consecutive FS samples light the over light, and so that is clipping. Aggressive limiting that flat-tops the signal isn't necessarily clipping, it's just aggressive limiting. But at what point does limiting turning into clipping? The point at which three consecutive FS samples appear. Much of the k man's confusion has to do with the fact that he can't get the difference between reference levels and loudness.. and once you start adding limiting, it doesn't matter _what_ your reference level is because you can go infinitely high over it and still not light that red light. Now... the truth is that I have seen some pop CDs that have as many as eight consecutive FS samples... and I would call that clipping. But, someone else who decides to calibrate their over light differently might not, and that is the problem when you start using the word 'clipping' in the digital world. Loudness is achieved by extreme compression and/or limiting. If digital clipping occurs, that is a *technical error* - not inherently part of the hyper-compression process. And the same 'loudness' could be achieved without any clipping. The question is where limiting ends and clipping begins, and where that exact line is actually is a philosophical question and not a technical one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
wrote:
Actually, I was criticizing the need to have all tracks on a CD peak within 1/10 of full scale, for WHAT EVER reason. Why? There's nothing wrong with that. If the D/A converter is properly designed, it's going to reproduce what went into it exactly. Peak levels have nothing to do with actual loudness. I can have a very quiet CD with one triangle hit that goes up to 0dBFS without even sounding very loud because it's so brief. So you _want_ your peak levels to be at 0dBFS. The question is where you want your _average_ levels to be, because that's where loudness comes from. Now, there IS a reason to leave plenty of headroom when you're going to be doing processing afterward, or on an original recording when you can never be sure something loud and unexpected won't happen. But that has absolutely no application to a final release CD. I know we have all explained this to you many many times and you don't get it, but I am going to try again. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 9:26:03 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Much of the k man's confusion has to do with the fact that he can't get the difference between reference levels and loudness.. and once you start adding limiting, it doesn't matter _what_ your reference level is because you can go infinitely high over it and still not light that red light. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Yes I can, if explained properly. By YOU Scott - and "N___" - keep it shut!! Let Dorsey have the floor. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 9:31:32 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: Actually, I was criticizing the need to have all tracks on a CD peak within 1/10 of full scale, for WHAT EVER reason. Why? There's nothing wrong with that. If the D/A converter is properly designed, it's going to reproduce what went into it exactly. Peak levels have nothing to do with actual loudness. I can have a very quiet CD with one triangle hit that goes up to 0dBFS without even sounding very loud because it's so brief. So you _want_ your peak levels to be at 0dBFS. The question is where you want your _average_ levels to be, because that's where loudness comes from. Now, there IS a reason to leave plenty of headroom when you're going to be doing processing afterward, or on an original recording when you can never be sure something loud and unexpected won't happen. But that has absolutely no application to a final release CD. I know we have all explained this to you many many times and you don't get it, but I am going to try again. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Thanks for that explanation Scott. My issue with peak normalization(which is what you describe above is called), is that a song with a lower peak-to-average ratio, peak normalized alongside a song with a higher peak-to-average, WILL SOUND LOUDER than the one with the higher peak to average. OTOH: If I use my ears to loudness-normalize 3-4 songs of different genres or production eras (stuff from the 1970s, 1990s, and last month), the final result is that they will all sound equally loud to my ears, but some of them my not peak at 0dB full scale - when I look at the meters during playback. And in my mind there's NOTHING WRONG with that; as long as they all sound about as loud as each other and sound GOOD. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 12:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. The problem is that in the digital world, clipping is whatever you define it as. I tend to set metering so three consecutive FS samples light the over light, and so that is clipping. No, you first have to normalise the gain back to 0dBFS for that to work since many CD's are first *severely clipped* then normalised to about -0.3dBFS, so your clip lights will never come on. BUT the flat tops remain regardless! Aggressive limiting that flat-tops the signal isn't necessarily clipping, it's just aggressive limiting. Rubbish, peak limiting that causes flat tops IS clipping. YOU simply don't understand what they have done, or the difference between compression and limiting it seems. But at what point does limiting turning into clipping? The point at which three consecutive FS samples appear. I'd agree with that, BUT it doesn't have to be FS, simply whatever point they have renormalised to after clipping. That is the bit you seem not to grasp. Much of the k man's confusion has to do with the fact that he can't get the difference between reference levels and loudness.. It seems you don't get the difference between 0dBFS and the chosen maximum normalised level yourself. and once you start adding limiting, it doesn't matter _what_ your reference level is because you can go infinitely high over it and still not light that red light. Or if you create square waves from sine waves and renormalise to anything slightly less than 0dBFS. No red light, and NO "limiter" is required to do that! Now... the truth is that I have seen some pop CDs that have as many as eight consecutive FS samples... Hell, you haven't looked much, I have seen HUNDREDS of consecutive samples at maximum NORMALISED level, ie FLAT TOPS! and I would call that clipping. Me too. But, someone else who decides to calibrate their over light differently might not, and that is the problem when you start using the word 'clipping' in the digital world. NOPE, clipping is clipping, whatever you choose as YOUR final peak level. Loudness is achieved by extreme compression and/or limiting. If digital clipping occurs, that is a *technical error* - not inherently part of the hyper-compression process. And the same 'loudness' could be achieved without any clipping. The question is where limiting ends and clipping begins, and where that exact line is actually is a philosophical question and not a technical one. NOPE, clipping is the same regardless of the chosen peak level. When a sine wave looks like a square wave, (ie completely flat tops) it is clipped, even if the max level is normalised to -60dBFS !!!!!!!!!!! I can EASILY do that, as can you if you want, and all the BS in the world about whether it is clipped or peak limited does NOT change the sound. Trevor. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/12/2015 7:29 AM, wrote:
Actually, I was criticizing the need to have all tracks on a CD peak within 1/10 of full scale, for WHAT EVER reason. For certain types of music played in certain situations, it's helpful of every track on the CD is approximately the same _loudness_. If it's all the same kind of music, and the kind of music that's usually fairly heavily compressed anyway, then by making all the tracks peak at 0 dBFS is an easy way to achieve this. You could just as easily make them all peak at -6 dBFS, or -20 dBFS, but only wimps do that. The idea is that you don't have to adjust the playback volume when switching from track to track. If you're driving in your car, working out in the gym, or if you're DJ-ing in a dance club, it's one more control you don't have to fiddle with. If you're sitting in your easy chair in the living room, it's nice to give your ears a little break now and then. The real solution, and it's sort of there but nobody implements it, is to encode some information about the loudness of the track and have the playback system adjust the level using that information and your listening preferences. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Mike Rivers writes:
[...] The real solution, and it's sort of there but nobody implements it, is to encode some information about the loudness of the track and have the playback system adjust the level using that information and your listening preferences. Didn't (or doesn't) Dolby have a system / standard that does just that for the movie/pro audio market? -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
wrote:
My issue with peak normalization(which is what you describe above is called), is that a song with a lower peak-to-average ratio, peak normalized alongside a song with a higher peak-to-average, WILL SOUND LOUDER than the one with the higher peak to average. Maybe. Maybe not. It's a case of apples and oranges. The question is what the average level is. OTOH: If I use my ears to loudness-normalize 3-4 songs of different genres or production eras (stuff from the 1970s, 1990s, and last month), the final result is that they will all sound equally loud to my ears, but some of them my not peak at 0dB full scale - when I look at the meters during playback. And in my mind there's NOTHING WRONG with that; as long as they all sound about as loud as each other and sound GOOD. This because the peak level has little to do with perceived loudness. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Randy Yates wrote:
Mike Rivers writes: [...] The real solution, and it's sort of there but nobody implements it, is to encode some information about the loudness of the track and have the playback system adjust the level using that information and your listening preferences. Didn't (or doesn't) Dolby have a system / standard that does just that for the movie/pro audio market? Yes, that would be the DIALNORM field in the Dolby AC-3 bitstream. The MP3 files have a similar thing, but of course it's heavily abused and invariably set to maximum. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Randy Yates wrote: Mike Rivers writes: [...] The real solution, and it's sort of there but nobody implements it, is to encode some information about the loudness of the track and have the playback system adjust the level using that information and your listening preferences. Didn't (or doesn't) Dolby have a system / standard that does just that for the movie/pro audio market? Yes, that would be the DIALNORM field in the Dolby AC-3 bitstream. The MP3 files have a similar thing, but of course it's heavily abused and invariably set to maximum. No, it was something much more extensive than a field in AC-3. I think it was/is "Dolby Volume," but I can't even remember where I found out about this: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technolog...by-volume.html -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
In article , Trevor wrote:
Rubbish, peak limiting that causes flat tops IS clipping. YOU simply don't understand what they have done, or the difference between compression and limiting it seems. How much of a flat top is needed for it to be clipping? One sample? Many samples? At what point does limiting end and clipping begin? On the other hand, let's say I have a drum hit that is only three samples long and it's the only loud thing on the track. I run it through a limiter... maybe it's just a pair of back to back diodes, and I chop it down 20 dB. It sounds fine. Did I clip it, or did I limit it? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 2:25 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. The problem is that in the digital world, clipping is whatever you define it as. I tend to set metering so three consecutive FS samples light the over light, and so that is clipping. I draw the line at 2, though 3 seems to be the commonly accepted criteria. geoff |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 3:23 a.m., Trevor wrote:
On 13/10/2015 12:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: geoff wrote: No CD that I've purchased in the last decade exhibit clipping that I've noticed, though a few are over-compressed to hell (not many fortunately). And some I've been prompted to actually check ! Not much 'current' pop though I concede. The problem is that in the digital world, clipping is whatever you define it as. I tend to set metering so three consecutive FS samples light the over light, and so that is clipping. No, you first have to normalise the gain back to 0dBFS for that to work since many CD's are first *severely clipped* then normalised to about -0.3dBFS, so your clip lights will never come on. BUT the flat tops remain regardless! Aggressive limiting that flat-tops the signal isn't necessarily clipping, it's just aggressive limiting. Rubbish, peak limiting that causes flat tops IS clipping. YOU simply don't understand what they have done, or the difference between compression and limiting it seems. I think this is the only thing where we really disagree. The rest of your debate seems hair-splitting about definitions of terms. I say that 'clipping' is only the result of a digital or analogue *overload*, where the actual mathematical or electrical constraints of the process are exceeded and nothing can exist above. Fuzz box ! 'Limiting' is the *controlled* result of a digital or analogue process. And yes, that can be extreme to the point of resembling clipping, but is not the same thing. Achieving, or adding to, limiting by clipping (sadly) is done, presumably by those who are incompetent, lack understanding of the implications, or have cynical intent. geoff |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 3:52 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
The idea is that you don't have to adjust the playback volume when switching from track to track. If you're driving in your car, working out in the gym, or if you're DJ-ing in a dance club, it's one more control you don't have to fiddle with. If you're sitting in your easy chair in the living room, it's nice to give your ears a little break now and then. The automotive scenario being the 'driving factor' behind the crushing that radio stations apply to the music. Kind of kills it for other situations though. geoff |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 2:05 a.m., JackA wrote:
http://www.keithhirsch.com/target-cds Jack A truly bizarre website. geoff |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
a good way to differentiate clipping from limiting from compression is by considering the attack and decay times relative to the features of the waveform clipping is instantaneous gain changes as soon as the waveform exceeds a threshold, the gain reduces as soon as the waveform is below threshold, the gain increases the attack and decay time are ZERO back to back diodes do this you can various ratios.. ie hard or soft clipping limiting is a slower process there is a finite attack and decay time that is longer than the time of a waveform cycle but is still very fast compared to the envelope usuall 1 to a few msec again you can have various ratios compression is even slower attack and decay time whose duration is large compared to individual waveform cycles and can be several sylabbles or several seconds even AGC is even slower typically operates over many seconds those are the definitions I use, anyway... Mark |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/12/2015 11:22 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
The real solution, and it's sort of there but nobody implements it, is to encode some information about the loudness of the track and have the playback system adjust the level using that information and your listening preferences. Didn't (or doesn't) Dolby have a system / standard that does just that for the movie/pro audio market? I was thinking about Dialnorm, but it's a movie thing that nobody calibrates the decoder correctly. I'm not aware of any home/consumer system that implements it. I think that there may be some reluctance on the part of consumers to have their playback system told to turn the volume up on this song and turn it down on that one. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 13/10/2015 10:48 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/12/2015 11:22 AM, Randy Yates wrote: The real solution, and it's sort of there but nobody implements it, is to encode some information about the loudness of the track and have the playback system adjust the level using that information and your listening preferences. Didn't (or doesn't) Dolby have a system / standard that does just that for the movie/pro audio market? I was thinking about Dialnorm, but it's a movie thing that nobody calibrates the decoder correctly. I'm not aware of any home/consumer system that implements it. I think that there may be some reluctance on the part of consumers to have their playback system told to turn the volume up on this song and turn it down on that one. My car iPod Touch has a automatic replay level function based on (I think) a peak-level parameter encoded into the file. When it works on a particularly 'different level' track there seems to be a second-long level adjustment at the commencement of a song, which is a pain. But not as much of a pain as having to reach for the knob (car stereo) nearly *every* song while driving when playing a random mix of material. geoff |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
geoff:
Where is this leveling feature in the Touch's settings? |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reference Levels for Editing, Broadcasting and Mastering | Pro Audio | |||
Digital Levels on CD's | Pro Audio | |||
Mastering output levels. | Pro Audio | |||
Mixdown Levels--Mastering? | Pro Audio | |||
"0dBFS+ Level in Audio Production." | Pro Audio |