Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 03:25, Trevor wrote:
On 14/10/2015 7:23 AM, wrote: If a lone sine wave sounds (and looks) different, then it is clipping. Not necessarily. *Squash* a sine wave without clipping, ie it has slightly flattened but still rounded tops, and it will sound different due to the extra harmonics added. Only when it has flat tops can it accurately be said to be clipped, by definition. Until then it is just compressed or soft limited. Some amplification stages don't clip the top of a waveform dead flat when overdriven. In fact, I have seen ringing on the top section before now. Do you call that clipping or limiting? -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 03:13, Trevor wrote:
On 14/10/2015 7:20 AM, wrote: On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 2:34:38 PM UTC-4, wrote: : Hmmm.. When I limit(flat top) a pure sine wave, even by just .5dB, it sounds different to me if you flat top it, then it is not limiting, it is clipping that is the essesnce of the difference So you think a limiter cannot cause clipping? I guess you have no idea what one does then! Apart from the simplest case of a pair of back to back diodes across the signal path, a limiter running within its design spec shuold not noticeably clip the waveform, as they work by reducing the gain in an amplifier stage according to the input level. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/14/2015 1:03 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
I presume this is where the exciter comes in. Adding harmonics while making not it sound like a fuzz box . If you're talking about the Aphex Aural Exciter, that added 2nd harmonics. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 6:44 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 14/10/2015 03:25, Trevor wrote: On 14/10/2015 7:23 AM, wrote: If a lone sine wave sounds (and looks) different, then it is clipping. Not necessarily. *Squash* a sine wave without clipping, ie it has slightly flattened but still rounded tops, and it will sound different due to the extra harmonics added. Only when it has flat tops can it accurately be said to be clipped, by definition. Until then it is just compressed or soft limited. Some amplification stages don't clip the top of a waveform dead flat when overdriven. Not until you overdrive them a bit further anyway. everything in a finite world will clip eventually. In fact, I have seen ringing on the top section before now. Do you call that clipping or limiting? Why in hell would I call ringing, clipping *OR* limiting? Of course the ringing may drive the output into clipping as well, but that a separate issue. Trevor. |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/14/2015 3:47 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Apart from the simplest case of a pair of back to back diodes across the signal path, a limiter running within its design spec shuold not noticeably clip the waveform, as they work by reducing the gain in an amplifier stage according to the input level. A limiter reduces the gain above the threshold, but with sufficiently fast rise time, it doesn't change the slew rate of the waveform. This changes the shape of the waveform, and that's, by definition, distortion. "Clipping" is a specific case of distortion, but it seems to have entered the public domain to mean anything that makes all the waveform peaks the same amplitude. Compression can, and often is used to modify the rise and fall times of a waveform, which can significantly alter timbre. You can think of it as working like a synthesizer that has adjustable attack and release times. But when used as means to reduce dynamic range, the attack and release times are slow enough so that they operate on the envelope (many cycles) rather than individual cycles. The waveform isn't buggered once the gain change stabilizes for a few cycles. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 14/10/2015 6:47 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 14/10/2015 03:13, Trevor wrote: On 14/10/2015 7:20 AM, wrote: On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 2:34:38 PM UTC-4, wrote: : Hmmm.. When I limit(flat top) a pure sine wave, even by just .5dB, it sounds different to me if you flat top it, then it is not limiting, it is clipping that is the essesnce of the difference So you think a limiter cannot cause clipping? I guess you have no idea what one does then! Apart from the simplest case of a pair of back to back diodes across the signal path, a limiter running within its design spec shuold not noticeably clip the waveform, as they work by reducing the gain in an amplifier stage according to the input level. Absolute BS. They work however the operator sets the knobs. BUT the whole point of a limiter as opposed to a compressor is to catch unexpected transients, and since the output is finite, at some point it MAY clip when doing the job it is designed to do! Of course if there are NO unexpected transients that exceed the knee of the limiter it will not clip, in which case you probably didn't need it and a compressor would have done the job better. But in a live situation you don't always know that. And in a studio I would never use a limiter myself. (as opposed to a compressor) And to be clear, just because a single box MAY contain both a compressor and a limiter, they are still 2 separate processes from a technical aspect. Many here just don't seem to grasp that. Trevor. |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
thekma @ thekma.thekma.thek.ma ranted and drooled in message
... "You've been making a huge stinking public display of what you don't understand, for some years now. What makes you think nobody would notice" YOU HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING TO THIS CONVERSATION - SO BUTT OUT, Despite your little caps-lock toddler tantrum, the fact remains that you have made a huge display of what you don't understand. Anyone who's been reading this groups for any significant amount of time knows a lot about what you don't understand, and your denial of that fact is pathetic. And here you are, back to your tricks of not understanding something that's been explained to you in detail, over and over and over and over again. And whining like the little bitch you are, when someone mentions what you don't understand. SO BUTT OUT, Despite your little caps-lock toddler tantrum, the fact remains that you are not the moderator. You aren't allowed in moderated groups, because you're not smart enough to follow the rules. So here you are on Usenet, where nobody can moderate you. And you can't moderate anyone. Sucks to be you. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID TO OFFEND YOU, AND YOU NEVER TOLD ME. Despite your little caps-lock toddler tantrum, the fact remains that you have been told this, repeatedly, and you just ignore it. Every day is like groundhog day to you, you start with a clean slate of dumb****ery. (The rest of your "filthy diatribe" has been flushed.) Please, put on your hockey helmet, and get back on the short bus. If you want to know the answers to your little questions, just go back and re-read all the explanations that have been given to you in the years since you decided to ride your little hobby horse in this group. All the answers are there, if you only had a brain. (Doo doot, doo doodoodoodoo doot). YRATSAY? FCKWAGFA! |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/14/2015 5:26 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/10/2015 6:44 PM, John Williamson wrote: On 14/10/2015 03:25, Trevor wrote: On 14/10/2015 7:23 AM, wrote: If a lone sine wave sounds (and looks) different, then it is clipping. Not necessarily. *Squash* a sine wave without clipping, ie it has slightly flattened but still rounded tops, and it will sound different due to the extra harmonics added. Only when it has flat tops can it accurately be said to be clipped, by definition. Until then it is just compressed or soft limited. Some amplification stages don't clip the top of a waveform dead flat when overdriven. Not until you overdrive them a bit further anyway. everything in a finite world will clip eventually. I don't always overdrive but when I do I use a Schmitt trigger. ;-) |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
A transformation T is linear iff T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2) So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this: L(x) = x, |x| 1 L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1. Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's a simple counterexample. Let x1 = 0.75, x2 = 0.75, a = 1, and b = 1. Then a*T(x1) + b*T(x2) = 1 * 0.75 + 1 * 0.75 = 1.5 but T(a*x1 + b*x2) = T(1.5) = 1. Not linear. Signals and Systems 101. Nothing better than to the heart of the issue. However, the debate will rage on, fueled by opinion, lore, ignorance, sloppy terminology, and of course, hobbyhorse dumb****ery. |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 14/10/2015 2:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: In article , Trevor wrote: Many samples? At least 3 or more. (genuine square waves excluded) And as I have said, some CD's have HUNDREDS of consecutive samples at maximum level, and often many similar groups in one song. IF there are only 3 in fact I'm not worried in the slightest, when there are hundreds I am. That is far more common with pop CD's these days than many people seem to think, simply because they never look. Well, that's the degenerate case. Those CDs are clearly clipped. But I'm talking about the borderline cases, because that's where it gets interesting. Few borderline cases in the pop world any more. I don't live in the pop world. I'm an engineer. I live in the math world. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
In article , Trevor wrote:
But you do appear to be claiming that all limiting is 'clipping', which is crap. Dunno where how you managed to extrapolate that out of anything I've said! In fact I have been VERY clear to spell it out even if you can't read or understand. Let me try once more for the slow learners, Limiting CAN become clipping when the knee (if there is one) is past. Not all limiting causes clipping, but it certainly CAN! If you haven't passed the knee, you aren't limiting. Below the knee, the transfer function is 1:1. Above the knee, it's not. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message A transformation T is linear iff T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2) So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this: L(x) = x, |x| 1 L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1. Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's a simple counterexample. Hi Randy, agreed, except that what is described above I would call a clipper, not a limiter... If it alters the envelope AND the waveform, its a clipper. If it alters only the envelope and NOT the waveform, its a limiter, compressor or AGC. Mark |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with
infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an unnecessarry waste of energy. Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of speced range of operaation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into clipping, so it produced such a waveform which we've conveniently named "clipped" after the clipping gear that produced it. |
#135
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Randy Yates writes:
writes: On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-4, None wrote: "Randy Yates" wrote in message A transformation T is linear iff T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2) So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this: L(x) = x, |x| 1 L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1. Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's a simple counterexample. Hi Randy, agreed, except that what is described above I would call a clipper, not a limiter... If it alters the envelope AND the waveform, its a clipper. If it alters only the envelope and NOT the waveform, its a limiter, compressor or AGC. Mark Hi Mark, Define envelope. Define waveform. The bottom line, in my opinion, is this: If the system is not linear, then you will introduce frequencies that weren't in the original input I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and "waveform" in this context. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with
infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an unnecessarry waste of energy. Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of speced range of operation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into "clipping", so it produced such a waveform, with clipped tops, so we've conveniently named process after the looks of it. What I want to say, clipped waveform is not a problem unless produced by clipping gear. As I already said in my previous post. |
#137
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Ñреда, 14. октобар 2015. 17.38.38 UTC+2, Randy Yates је напиÑао/ла:
I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and "waveform" in this context. Mike Rivers introduced those into discussion, Mark is merely building on it.. |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/14/2015 11:38 AM, Randy Yates wrote:
I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and "waveform" in this context. Envelope is a line drawn through the peaks of every cycle over whatever period of time you want to look at. In the context that y'all are arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube" limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well be - it won't sound any worse than if the envelope is flat-topped at -6 dBFS, but it'll be louder. The waveform is what you see when you blow up the display so that you can see individual cycles. You can see the peak level of each cycle, and whatever goes up, comes down. It's the peaks of the waveform that you connect to get the envelope. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Mike Rivers writes:
arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube" limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well Must be a regional thing. Out west we call it "cinderblock" limiting. Picture a raw cinderblock in profile, and then a bunch of them lined up in a row (the waveforms of the songs on your favorite mashed album displayed in your DAW, for example). Hard, rough, gray, brittle, unmoving. "Toothpaste" sounds too benign. w Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#140
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 11:34:52 AM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
writes: On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 8:55:19 AM UTC-4, None wrote: "Randy Yates" wrote in message A transformation T is linear iff T(a*x1 + b*x2) = a*T(x1) + b*T(x2) So let's consider a very simple limiter that does this: L(x) = x, |x| 1 L(x) = sgn(x) * 1, |x| = 1. Is this linear by the definition above? Nope. Here's a simple counterexample. Hi Randy, agreed, except that what is described above I would call a clipper, not a limiter... If it alters the envelope AND the waveform, its a clipper. If it alters only the envelope and NOT the waveform, its a limiter, compressor or AGC. Mark Hi Mark, Define envelope. Define waveform. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(waves) Blue is the waveform red and green are the envelopes which for audio work are almost always the inverse of each other or see Richard Lyons's book page 366 in the 2nd edition he defines it mathematically as the abs value of the complex analytical signal which = sqrt of real part squared + imaginary part squared |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Luxey wrote:
Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an unnecessarry waste of energy. This is true. But clipping is just a special case of limiting if you look at it that way... with a much more discontinuous knee. Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of speced range of operaation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into clipping, so it produced such a waveform which we've conveniently named "clipped" after the clipping gear that produced it. The thing is, even soft knee limiting can produce some amount of that distortion. The question is how much makes it clipping? That puts us back to the definition of "if you can hear it working it's clipping and not limiting" which is good but not very rigorous. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Luxey wrote:
=D1=81=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B0, 14. =D0=BE=D0=BA=D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B1=D0=B0=D1= =80 2015. 17.38.38 UTC+2, Randy Yates =D1=98=D0=B5 =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8= =D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BE/=D0=BB=D0=B0: I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and=20 "waveform" in this context. Mike Rivers introduced those into discussion, Mark is merely building on it= . It's true though that you can't alter one without altering the other in some way. They are both different ways of _thinking about_ an arbitrary function. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 15/10/2015 5:19 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/14/2015 11:38 AM, Randy Yates wrote: I also do not know what you mean by the terms "envelope" and "waveform" in this context. Envelope is a line drawn through the peaks of every cycle over whatever period of time you want to look at. In the context that y'all are arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube" limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well be - it won't sound any worse than if the envelope is flat-topped at -6 dBFS, but it'll be louder. The waveform is what you see when you blow up the display so that you can see individual cycles. You can see the peak level of each cycle, and whatever goes up, comes down. It's the peaks of the waveform that you connect to get the envelope. Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out). geoff |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 15/10/2015 7:08 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes: arguing about here, it would likely be a whole song. If it's darn near a straight line with no squiggles, that's what we call "toothpaste tube" limiting. The amplitude value may not be full scale but it might as well Must be a regional thing. Out west we call it "cinderblock" limiting. Picture a raw cinderblock in profile, and then a bunch of them lined up in a row (the waveforms of the songs on your favorite mashed album displayed in your DAW, for example). Hard, rough, gray, brittle, unmoving. "Toothpaste" sounds too benign. w Much of the world has no idea what a cinderblock is or looks like. I guess 'toothpaste tube or sausage may fail by that logic too though ... ;-) geoff |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 15/10/2015 9:22 a.m., geoff wrote:
Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out). geoff .... but I'm sure Trev will find a way to lambast me for my apparent ignorance on this subject too ;-) geoff |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
geoff wrote:
Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out). If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it, you get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to be the envelope? Depends. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Randy Yates wrote: "- show quoted text -
Hi Mark, Define envelope. Define waveform. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com " THANK YOU VERY MUCH for asking this! Because frankly, NOBODY has satisfactorily distinguished the two! |
#148
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 15/10/2015 10:09 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out). If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it, you get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to be the envelope? Depends. --scott Depends on the context of what is being described. Envelope of a half-dozen cycles, or a whole song, or album. The joys of 'visual low pass filtering' - a simple flick of the mouse-wheel to achieve each scenario ! geoff |
#149
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#150
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
thekma @ gmail.com wrote in message news:7335a01f-be1a-4e3e-9659
Because frankly, NOBODY has satisfactorily distinguished the two! Dorsey just posted a concise and useful definition (below). Perhaps you were too busy ranting to notice. "If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it, you get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to be the envelope? Depends." |
#151
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/14/2015 4:24 PM, geoff wrote:
Much of the world has no idea what a cinderblock is or looks like. I guess 'toothpaste tube or sausage may fail by that logic too though ... I don't know about toothpaste, but practically every nationality has sausage of some sort, though the word might need translation. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#152
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Scott Dorsey:
An analogy with a city skyline: The individual buildings are the waveform, while an imaginary line from the top of each building to the next would be the envelope. But remember: the 'envelope' is just an outline. |
#153
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 10/14/2015 6:09 PM, None wrote:
Dorsey just posted a concise and useful definition (below). Perhaps you were too busy ranting to notice. "If you take the waveform and take the absolute value and low-pass it, you get the envelope. But how far do you have to low-pass it for it to be the envelope? Depends." That's not a definition, it's a mathematical process. The terms here have been explained several times. Anyone who cares and doesn't understand what they mean must not understand something more fundamental. The pictures are good. They explain all you need to know. What you do with that information, however, depends. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#154
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
No^#%.\!{:
I said ZIP IT unless something other than **** is going to flow from your keyboard! |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
krissie krybaby @ dumb****sRthekma.shortbus.edu wrote in message
... No^#%.\!{: I said ZIP IT unless something other than **** is going to flow from your keyboard! I see that you're still ignoring the hell out of me. Have you noticed that when you tell me to shut up, it doesn't work? No, just because it's happened hundreds of times, you haven't noticed, because you're an idiot. Not a moderator; an idiot. IHTSIYC. WAFTH. |
#157
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
krissie krybaby @ dumb****sRthekma.shortbus.edu wrote in message
... No^#%.\!{: I said ZIP IT unless something other than **** is going to flow from your keyboard! I see that you're still ignoring the hell out of me. Have you noticed that when you tell me to shut up, it doesn't work? No, just because it's happened hundreds of times, you haven't noticed, because you're an idiot. Not a moderator; an idiot. IHTSIYC. WAFTH. |
#158
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
Mike Rivers wrote: "understand what they mean must not understand something more fundamental.
The pictures are good. They explain all you need to know. What you do with that information, however, depends. " Word games played all too often on here.... Hey Mike: you good friends with Donald Rumsfeld? 'Cause you sure sound like him above! lol |
#159
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
|
#160
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
On 15/10/2015 12:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: But you do appear to be claiming that all limiting is 'clipping', which is crap. Dunno where how you managed to extrapolate that out of anything I've said! In fact I have been VERY clear to spell it out even if you can't read or understand. Let me try once more for the slow learners, Limiting CAN become clipping when the knee (if there is one) is past. Not all limiting causes clipping, but it certainly CAN! If you haven't passed the knee, you aren't limiting. You mean if you haven't *reached* the knee, then of course. Below the knee, the transfer function is 1:1. Above the knee, it's not. Well duh. Trevor. |
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 |