[[email protected]]

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...st-factor.html

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, wrote:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...st-factor.html

It would help if you had a question.

I'm not a famous mastering engineer, but what I tell people about meters
is that they can tell you if you're making a technical mistake, but they
can't tell you if the music sounds right. I think that's what Fabien is
saying in that thread.

When you have some experience under your belt and are working with a
familiar monitoring system, you get to learn what your target apparent
loudness level is - in his case, what he calls low, medium, and high. As
long as the peak meter _and your ears_ are saying that you're not
clipping, you're OK. Most listeners won't ask for their money back if
their meter doesn't sit near full scale all the time.

You might want to read Bob Katz' (digitaldomain.com) article on the
metering system that he devised that accommodates different expected
loudness ranges. It makes a lot of sense, and others have adopted it
because they've found that it works for them.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

the k_infant drools @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...st-factor.html

"All you do is issue a stream of utter nonsense on your pointless
crusade and challenge remarks by people such as ..., ..., and
countless others. If you did this anywhere but on an internet forum
you would have had a broken nose by now."

"Have some respect for people who are clearly far more talented,
knowledgeable, open and helpful than you."

Everyone's in general agreement, Krissie child. There's an idiot, and
you keep proving that it's you. Maybe you could find somewhere else on
the net that you could use for toilet paper, and stop wiping your ass
here on RAP.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers:

Verrry familiar with the K-Metering system Mike. Personally believe it kicks ass in terms of restoring the concept of headroom in metering and recording/mixing/mastering. I hope it ends the concept of peak-based metering in digital once and for freakin' all!


But try telling that to some of the "pros" on there that don't get it:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...light=k+system

Very often, calibrating to the K-system means monitors will have to be turned UP, which means one will not have to mix/master at such high levels as before. But they don't, and they claim the monitor levels are "too high". SMH..

If they would learn to think in terms of gain staging and voltage, they would understand the aims of Katz's metering, and a large contributor to the loudness war would be silenced.

Monitoring at a low volume is what leads to over compression and brickwall-limiting in the first place, particularly if all one uses are their "ears". Of course, that is what compression/limiting is for: listening at lower volumes. But well-produced albums, or, ones produced before Zero was moved to the top of the metering scale, make you want to turn UP the volume, not down!

The K-system, with built-in RMS and peak indication, serves as a guide, and hopefully will lead to less destructive practices in music production.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/17/2014 10:05 AM, wrote:

Very often, calibrating to the K-system means monitors will have to
be turned UP, which means one will not have to mix/master at such
high levels as before. But they don't, and they claim the monitor
levels are "too high". SMH..

He says to set the SPL at 85 dB (or 83 dB for each speaker by itself)
when playing pink noise at your chosen nominal record level. Since most
of my work is with live music, I like to use -20dBFS as my
"pre-headroom" level. If I was mixing dance music, that would probably
be at least 10 dB higher. But what I found with that calibration was
that the listening volume was uncomfortably loud for me, so I just
backed it off so I could stand to hear the full scale peaks. But
whatever you choose for your monitor volume, as long as it's within the
ear's "normal" working range, you can use that for a reference with
whatever headroom you choose.

Monitoring at a low volume is what leads to over compression and
brickwall-limiting in the first place, particularly if all one uses
are their "ears". Of course, that is what compression/limiting is
for: listening at lower volumes.

Well, it helps, but what mastering has become is making it sound louder
than the last record you listened to (so it will sound better) because
they know you won't reach over and turn up the volume if it didn't.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

k baby whines @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers:

Verrry familiar with the K-Metering system Mike. Personally believe
it kicks ass in terms of restoring the concept of headroom in
metering and recording/mixing/mastering. I hope it ends the concept
of peak-based metering in digital once and for freakin' all!

You're riding a hobby horse that you killed long ago.

But try telling that to some of the "pros" on there that don't get
it:

Try it yourself. And they'll knock you off the dead hobby horse, or
ban you for being an annoying dick.

flush more of li'l Krissy flogging his dead hobby horse

Ride em'm Krissie, ride!

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "that the listening volume was uncomfortably loud for me, so I just backed it off so I could stand to hear the full scale peaks."


No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you achieve them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).


Back off on the signal level through your board, until your RMS corresponds to which k-system rms you have selected, be it -12, -14, or -20.


Hey Rivers, do you know this "None" guy following me around Usenet? Pain i the ass, idn't he?

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "that the listening volume was uncomfortably loud for me, so I just backed it off so I could stand to hear the full scale peaks."


No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you achieve them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).


Back off on the signal level through your board, until your RMS corresponds to which k-system rms you have selected, be it -12, -14, or -20.


Hey Rivers, do you know this "None" guy following me around Usenet? Pain in the ass, idn't he?

[Sean Conolly]

wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote: "that the listening volume was uncomfortably loud for
me, so I just backed it off so I could stand to hear the full scale
peaks."


No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you achieve
them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).


Back off on the signal level through your board, until your RMS
corresponds to which k-system rms you have selected, be it -12, -14,
or -20.

If the signal path upstream of the monitors is variable, what difference
does the 'reference' level of the monitors make? You can squash a recording
with any reference level you chose, and at any listening level you desire.

Sean

[[email protected]]

Sean Conolly wrote: "If the signal path upstream of the monitors is variable, what difference
does the 'reference' level of the monitors make? You can squash a recording
with any reference level you chose, and at any listening level you desire. "


A higher monitor level means that your signal(your project) will sound as loud at -14RMS on your DAW meter as it did before at, hypothetically, -8 or -6RMS on the DAW with a lower monitor volume.

That higher monitor level=more headroom for dynamics and less aggressive application of compression and/or limiting. You're getting the gain where you should be getting it from - downstream - from your amp/speaker combination, or in a studio case, your active monitors, not from your mix.

Yes, you can still squash/brick wall a recording at any RMS level: K-12, K-20, K-you name it(!) but for what purpose? You'd have all that unused headroom to spare that could accommodate the natural musical transients of rhythm & percussion instruments.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/17/2014 1:10 PM, wrote:

No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you
achieve them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).

Listening volume is a personal thing. It does me no good to mix at a
listening level where everything sounds uncomfortable. 85 dB SPL (I
think A-weighted but I don't remember for sure) is what SMPTE specifies,
but they also specify that there should be nothing in the digital audio
file that goes above -10 dBFS. For me (and probably most people here
will agree) movies are also too loud.

Hey Rivers, do you know this "None" guy following me around Usenet?
Pain i the ass, idn't he?

No, but the Internet is full of stalkers. You must have picked up one.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "Listening volume is a personal thing. It does me no good to mix at a
listening level where everything sounds uncomfortable. 85 dB SPL (I
think A-weighted but I don't remember for sure) is what SMPTE specifies,
but they also specify that there should be nothing in the digital audio
file that goes above -10 dBFS. For me (and probably most people here
will agree) movies are also too loud. "

That 85dB SPL - is that avg or peak? Same for the -10 dBfs digital audio figure - avg or peak?

[[email protected]]

By the way I do TV calibration part-time. And I get one of the following two reactions every time:

"It's too dim"

or

"The color looks dull".

This is the general public we're talking about here, who are accustomed to the factory settings that jack up the contrast, color, sharpness, and have every "auto"-this and -that gimmick enabled.


Their first impulse, like yours with the calibrated monitor setup, is to go back to what they're used to.


I tell them: Give your set 24-48 hours. Watch a variety of pre-recorded material(DVD, Blu Ray) on it, not just broadcast or cable, which, aside from PBS, are all over the place in terms of accuracy.


Same with your monitors. If you're using a digital mixer with full-scale metering, don't let the peaks go above -6dB when you're setting gain through the board. Remember, the general concensus is that analog 0VU(rms) is around -18-20dBFS. That's average, and will give you plenty of dynamics headroom and not seem too loud for long-term listening.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/17/2014 1:10 PM, wrote:

No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you
achieve them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).

Listening volume is a personal thing.

Quite. To specify an absolute one is pure nonsense. Devised by someone who
doesn't understand mixing.


It does me no good to mix at a
listening level where everything sounds uncomfortable. 85 dB SPL (I
think A-weighted but I don't remember for sure) is what SMPTE specifies,
but they also specify that there should be nothing in the digital audio
file that goes above -10 dBFS. For me (and probably most people here
will agree) movies are also too loud.

Very much so. I don't go to the movies much - but when I do will choose a
quiet time. I also like what I'd describe as a traditional drama, rather
than a movie full of SFX. So it will be mainly dialogue. And really don't
see why it has to be played at an uncomfortably high level. Stupidly high
- much louder than I'd use for such things in the dubbing suite.

Hey Rivers, do you know this "None" guy following me around Usenet?
Pain i the ass, idn't he?

No, but the Internet is full of stalkers. You must have picked up one.

Generally, those who don't use their real name are best avoided. ;-) What
have they got to hide?

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[None]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2014 1:10 PM, wrote:

No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you
achieve them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).

Listening volume is a personal thing. It does me no good to mix at a
listening level where everything sounds uncomfortable. 85 dB SPL (I
think A-weighted but I don't remember for sure) is what SMPTE
specifies, but they also specify that there should be nothing in the
digital audio file that goes above -10 dBFS. For me (and probably
most people here will agree) movies are also too loud.

Hey Rivers, do you know this "None" guy following me around Usenet?
Pain i the ass, idn't he?

No, but the Internet is full of stalkers. You must have picked up
one.

I'm not following anyone. But this stupid K - **** is taking craps all
over newsgroups that I already read. For a while, it felt like he was
stalking me.

[None]

wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote: "Listening volume is a personal thing. It does
me no good to mix at a
listening level where everything sounds uncomfortable. 85 dB SPL (I
think A-weighted but I don't remember for sure) is what SMPTE
specifies,
but they also specify that there should be nothing in the digital
audio
file that goes above -10 dBFS. For me (and probably most people here
will agree) movies are also too loud. "

That 85dB SPL - is that avg or peak? Same for the -10 dBfs digital
audio figure - avg or peak?

If you have to ask, then you haven't been paying attention, and any
attempt to explain it to you yet another yet another time won't sink
in any better than the last few hundred times. There's a reason you're
being banned from the moderated groups. The reason is you. You won't
be censored here on RAP, but you won't learn any better here than on a
censored forum, because the problem is the idiot asshole that you are.

How's that stalking campaign of yours coming, where you were
threatening to sic the FBI, NSA, and BMF on me? Hehe.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/18/2014 6:54 AM, wrote:
That 85dB SPL - is that avg or peak? Same for the -10 dBfs digital audio figure - avg or peak?

The monitor level calibration is done with pink noise. SPL is measured
with an SPL meter which does some sort of averaging. The standards for
measuring SPL define a "fast" and "slow" response time which I'm pretty
sure is the averaging time period. Still, they meter wanders around a
bit, so you really need to take an "eyeball average" and not sweat the
small stuff.

dBFS is, by nature, a peak measurement, so you'd want your pink noise
playback to peak at the desired reference level.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 8/18/2014 6:54 AM, wrote:
That 85dB SPL - is that avg or peak? Same for the -10 dBfs digital audio figure - avg or peak?

The monitor level calibration is done with pink noise. SPL is measured
with an SPL meter which does some sort of averaging. The standards for
measuring SPL define a "fast" and "slow" response time which I'm pretty
sure is the averaging time period. Still, they meter wanders around a
bit, so you really need to take an "eyeball average" and not sweat the
small stuff.

dBFS is, by nature, a peak measurement, so you'd want your pink noise
playback to peak at the desired reference level.
- show quoted text -"

Right, so hypothetically, if you're calibrating to K-14, you'd want that pink noise to register 83dB SPL on a reputable SPL meter at your mix position, at -14dBfs on the mixer meters.

With the K-system meter plugin, you can shoot for -14dBfs rms on everything you mix or master(same as was done via pink noise in calibration)leaving headroom for dynamics.

But if you turn down the monitors, you won't hear softer elements of the mix as well, tempting you to heap on gobs of limiting, compression, and makeup gain just to elevate them. The result: another hyper compressed brick wall turd.

[Sean Conolly]

wrote in message
...
Sean Conolly wrote: "If the signal path upstream of the monitors is
variable, what difference
does the 'reference' level of the monitors make? You can squash a recording
with any reference level you chose, and at any listening level you desire. "


A higher monitor level means that your signal(your project) will sound as
loud at -14RMS on your DAW meter as it did before at, hypothetically, -8
or -6RMS on the DAW with a lower monitor volume.

That higher monitor level=more headroom for dynamics and less aggressive
application of compression and/or limiting. You're getting the gain where
you should be getting it from - downstream - from your amp/speaker
combination, or in a studio case, your active monitors, not from your mix.

Yes, you can still squash/brick wall a recording at any RMS level: K-12,
K-20, K-you name it(!) but for what purpose? You'd have all that unused
headroom to spare that could accommodate the natural musical transients of
rhythm & percussion instruments.

-----------------------------------

So you're implying that people are over-compressing recordings because their
monitors aren't loud enough? I'm very skeptical of either assertion in that.

What you have is an unlikely solution (turn the monitors up) to an unlikely
relationship (people over compressing because the levels are too low) to a
real problem (over compression of commecrcial material). The likely reason
being, as others have said, commercial pressure to release music that is
louder than other material on the radio, followed closely by people copying
what others do because they don't know better.

It's an attempt to fix a problem in one domain with a solution from
another - which I find usually doesn't work well.

Just my opinion,

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"None" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/2014 1:10 PM, wrote:

No! Don't back off from the calibrated monitor levels once you
achieve them(not just you Mike, anyone reading this sentence).

Listening volume is a personal thing. It does me no good to mix at a
listening level where everything sounds uncomfortable. 85 dB SPL (I think
A-weighted but I don't remember for sure) is what SMPTE specifies, but
they also specify that there should be nothing in the digital audio file
that goes above -10 dBFS. For me (and probably most people here will
agree) movies are also too loud.

Hey Rivers, do you know this "None" guy following me around Usenet?
Pain i the ass, idn't he?

No, but the Internet is full of stalkers. You must have picked up one.

I'm not following anyone. But this stupid K - **** is taking craps all
over newsgroups that I already read. For a while, it felt like he was
stalking me.

I may be a minority in this view, but I will automatically question the
credibility of someone who posts anonymously. I've always used my real name,
and try to write respectfully knowing that anyone could track me down.

Sean

[[email protected]]

Sean Conolly wrote: wrote in message
...
- show quoted text -
-----------------------------------

So you're implying that people are over-compressing recordings because their
monitors aren't loud enough? I'm very skeptical of either assertion in that..

What you have is an unlikely solution (turn the monitors up) to an unlikely
relationship (people over compressing because the levels are too low) to a
real problem (over compression of commecrcial material). The likely reason
being, as others have said, commercial pressure to release music that is
louder than other material on the radio, followed closely by people copying
what others do because they don't know better.

It's an attempt to fix a problem in one domain with a solution from
another - which I find usually doesn't work well.

Just my opinion,

Sean "

Commercial pressure(from artists, their producers, and labels) is *a* reason for brick-turds, maybe two-thirds of the reason, but certainly not by itself.

Full-scale metering(peak based) along with improper gain staging(input too high, listen-back too low) comprise a third of the issue, I believe. After all, getting the meter to read close to Zero - wherever it resides on a scale, is human nature. And aiming for zero full scale has definitely resulted in some LOUD new albums, and remasters.

[[email protected]]

Sean Conolly wrote: ""None" wrote in message
...
- show quoted text -
I may be a minority in this view, but I will automatically question the
credibility of someone who posts anonymously. I've always used my real name,
and try to write respectfully knowing that anyone could track me down.

Sean "

First off Sean, do NOT, EVER, quote anything posted by 'N0ne'sic or even refer to him/it, in a post.

With that cleared up, I do not want every societal reject sending me spam e-mail, ringing my phones 24/7/365, or showing up on my front doorstep - something an expert hacker, or someone who just doesn't like me for whatever reason, should have no problem doing - if I posted via my real name, thank you very much.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

I do not want every societal reject sending me spam e-mail,
ringing my phones 24/7/365, or showing up on my front doorstep
something an expert hacker, or someone who just doesn't like me
for whatever reason, should have no problem doing -- if I posted via
my real name, thank you very much.

This has happened to me only once. I posted what I thought was a Terribly
Clever Joke about CRT current -- and someone took great offense at it. I was
the recipient of an extremely angry phone call, and was unable to calm the man
down.

It (probably) taught me a lesson about what you post.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

With that cleared up, I do not want every societal reject sending me spam e=
-mail, ringing my phones 24/7/365, or showing up on my front doorstep - som=
ething an expert hacker, or someone who just doesn't like me for whatever r=
eason, should have no problem doing - if I posted via my real name, thank y=
ou very much.

Then why don't you stop posting this junk to technical groups?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey:

What "junk", exactly?

[Luxey]

недеља, 17. авгу�т 2014. 16.05.37 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:
Mike Rivers:



Verrry familiar with the K-Metering system Mike. Personally believe it kicks ass in terms of restoring the concept of headroom in metering and recording/mixing/mastering. I hope it ends the concept of peak-based metering in digital once and for freakin' all!





But try telling that to some of the "pros" on there that don't get it:



http://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...light=k+system



Very often, calibrating to the K-system means monitors will have to be turned UP, which means one will not have to mix/master at such high levels as before. But they don't, and they claim the monitor levels are "too high". SMH..



If they would learn to think in terms of gain staging and voltage, they would understand the aims of Katz's metering, and a large contributor to the loudness war would be silenced.



Monitoring at a low volume is what leads to over compression and brickwall-limiting in the first place, particularly if all one uses are their "ears". Of course, that is what compression/limiting is for: listening at lower volumes. But well-produced albums, or, ones produced before Zero was moved to the top of the metering scale, make you want to turn UP the volume, not down!



The K-system, with built-in RMS and peak indication, serves as a guide, and hopefully will lead to less destructive practices in music production.

Thekma, you're quite ignorant on the matter. Just say you don't like it squashed and be done with it. Hopefully you read "Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog)", so have a steak and a beer and ... "And dont stuff up your head with things you dont understand. ..."

[[email protected]]

Luxey: Please explain how "ignorant" I am regarding the loudness/brick wall matter.

At least I know it's caused by multiple factors.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 18. авгу�т 2014. 19.19.30 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:
Luxey: Please explain how "ignorant" I am regarding the loudness/brick wall matter.



At least I know it's caused by multiple factors.

I will mention only this one principle,

You said: "Monitoring at a low volume is what leads to over compression and brickwall-limiting in the first place,..."

No. Wrong. You do not understand.

As far as the loudness war issue, they are used to make one recording sound louder than another, at given (proposed) SPL.

It does not matter what the SPL is, it only matters how loud something else appear to be and one's whish to make something else appear louder.

[[email protected]]

Luxey:

Well guess what: I have listened to the hyper-compressed brick walled version of a song, and it's less processed more dynamic companion, and it is easier to hear more of the former at lower SPL than the latter. And I actually "used my ears"!

So my statement is partially correct, depending on how you choose to contextualize it.

As far as compression goes, I know what it is supposed to be for and what it is not for. In recording, mild compression can stabilize a vocal track. At the other end, in mastering, it can help glue together a mix.

It is when compression is used excessively, or combined with heavy limiting, that I, and MANY OTHER music fans, cannot tolerate.

So to ANYONE reading this - from here, Hoffman Forums, or Gearslutz, if this loudness/squashing thing is my "personal crusade"' then kindly explain the dozens of websites, blogs, podcasts and social network groups devoted to combatting these destructive practices and educating listeners and artists.

[John Williamson]

On 18/08/2014 15:33, wrote:
Commercial pressure(from artists, their producers, and labels) is *a* reason for brick-turds, maybe two-thirds of the reason, but certainly not by itself.

Full-scale metering(peak based) along with improper gain staging(input too high, listen-back too low) comprise a third of the issue, I believe. After all, getting the meter to read close to Zero - wherever it resides on a scale, is human nature. And aiming for zero full scale has definitely resulted in some LOUD new albums, and remasters.

So how do you explain the meters right through to the tape head amps in
the '70s pegging the endstops during recording, and producing loud
material with plenty of dynamic range? Admittedly, analogue and tape
overload do sound better than digital clipping and do some compression,
but still...

The current lack of dynamic range is *entirely* due to the bands and the
sales people wanting it to sound as loud as possible to drown out
background noise and sound louder (Hence "better") on the ****ty
playback systems many people use today. Heck, I've even had good
orchestras and choirs singing church music asking for their material to
be compressed as "It's not loud enough" in spite of peaking at full
scale. They wanted the quiet songs and movements to be about the same
volume as the loud bits. I'll be tempted next time to just turn on the
AGC in the recorder...

It has nothing, zilch, and nada to do with monitoring levels in the
studio or mastering suite.

The only required standard for monitoring level when mixing down is set
by the parts of the industry involved with pictures as well, and that's
carried through to playback in theatres, or at least those that can be
@rsed to set their systems up to meet the standards.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 18/08/2014 16:34, wrote:
Scott Dorsey:

What "junk", exactly?

Roughly 90% of what you post is ill informed junk.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 18/08/2014 19:45, wrote:
Luxey:

Well guess what: I have listened to the hyper-compressed brick walled version of a song, and it's less processed more dynamic companion, and it is easier to hear more of the former at lower SPL than the latter. And I actually "used my ears"!

So my statement is partially correct, depending on how you choose to contextualize it.

As far as compression goes, I know what it is supposed to be for and what it is not for. In recording, mild compression can stabilize a vocal track. At the other end, in mastering, it can help glue together a mix.

It is when compression is used excessively, or combined with heavy limiting, that I, and MANY OTHER music fans, cannot tolerate.

So to ANYONE reading this - from here, Hoffman Forums, or Gearslutz, if this loudness/squashing thing is my "personal crusade"' then kindly explain the dozens of websites, blogs, podcasts and social network groups devoted to combatting these destructive practices and educating listeners and artists.

If music fans don't like over compressed material, they have two choices.

Make your views known to the publishers of the recordings and tell them
you will stop buying their output until the standards change.

Or just stop buying the stuff you don't like.

Either will eventually produce the result you want, if there are enough
of you.

Don't rant at the recording and mastering engineers here, they either
produce what their clients want, or go out of business.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson: 90% ehh?

Break that down for me, provide proof.

At least my intentions are good!

[None]

wrote in message
...
First off Sean, do NOT, EVER, quote anything posted by 'N0ne'sic
or even refer to him/it, in a post.

Do you use comedy writers?

[None]

wrote in message
...
So my statement is partially correct, depending on how you choose to
contextualize it.

In the real world, you head is up your ass. But if you choose to
"contextualize" that to the internal world of your own rectum, you are
still more than partially full of ****.

[david gourley[_2_]]

"None" said...news:b5ydnd-
:

wrote in message
...
So my statement is partially correct, depending on how you choose to
contextualize it.

In the real world, you head is up your ass. But if you choose to
"contextualize" that to the internal world of your own rectum, you are
still more than partially full of ****.


Maybe you're giving him too much credit for having a head in the first
place, while his neck is just blowing bubbles.

david

[John Williamson]

On 18/08/2014 21:21, wrote:
John Williamson: 90% ehh?

Break that down for me, provide proof.

At least my intentions are good!

We could start with all your contributions to this thread. Including the
original post.

Having good intentions doesn't make you right.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 19/08/2014 2:33 a.m., wrote:
. And aiming for zero full scale has definitely resulted in some LOUD
new albums, and remasters.


"Zero full scale" has little to do with the "loudness".

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/19/2014 6:07 AM, geoff wrote:

"Zero full scale" has little to do with the "loudness".

What has to do a lot with loudness is how many samples there are that
are very close to full scale. The more "dense" the file is, at a given
volume setting, the louder it will play.

Compression in itself is a reduction in level, but higher levels get
more reduction than lower levels so that every sound, or, in the extreme
case, every sample, has the same level. This in itself makes it quieter.
But there's a second part of "compression" as we know it in audio, and
that's amplification after compression.

If, after gain reduction, all of your samples are around, say, -6 dBFS,
amplify it by 6 dB and you don't exceed full scale, but everything that
was quieter in the original source is now 6 dB louder than they
previously were, but the file is still "legal" since no peaks try to
exceed full scale.

Of course this screws with the sound, often making it sound unnatural,
but that's why people are complaining.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "Compression in itself is a reduction in level, but higher levels get
more reduction than lower levels so that every sound, or, in the extreme
case, every sample, has the same level. This in itself makes it quieter.
But there's a second part of "compression" as we know it in audio, and
that's amplification after compression.

If, after gain reduction, all of your samples are around, say, -6 dBFS,
amplify it by 6 dB and you don't exceed full scale, but everything that
was quieter in the original source is now 6 dB louder than they
previously were, but the file is still "legal" since no peaks try to "

THANK YOU for putting in words what I've been having a hard time doing so!!

In all sincerity I think my problem here and on GearSlutz is inability to properly express what I already know.

There has to be a means of correlating all these different scales so that a 1970s BTO track, engineered on equipment with VU meters can be compared in loudness terms to a 2010 Nickelback engineered on peak-based metering.

This site seems to have done it, but I don't know how: http://blog.echonest..com/post/62248...-prove-it-with

Or:

http://m.fastcompany.com/1506012/inf...rse-and-louder

What algorithms are these webpages using to glean this information?

I already know modern CDs are louder than those from the '80s - if I attempt to play "Elephunk"(black eyed peas) at the same volume *setting*(numerical position of the knob) I used to play "Brothers In Arms"(Dire straits), I could damage my speakers, or at minimum, **** off the wife(!)

And with all respect to John "Tchao for now" Williamson, yes: most occurrences in LIFE, let alone the recording business, are MULTIcausal.

Yes, Titanic sank after hitting ice. But what decisionS and actionS let to the events of that night? What design factorS of the ship itself led to her sinkability in the first place? Ponder that for a while.