[None]

wrote in message
...
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.

Your biggest problem on Gearslitz is continuing to ride your hobby
horse when nobody wants to hear it any more.

Your next biggest problem is that you have no idea what you're talking
about, technically, but you're too stupid to realize that. It's not
that you are unable to properly express what you know; you're deluding
yourself about that but nobody else is fooled. It's that you "already
know" almost nothing about the issue, but you keep spewing nonsense.

sneck more demonstrations that Krissi is a kook
... Ponder that for a while.

****ing idiot.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/19/2014 6:56 AM, wrote:

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

Now just wait for all the flack about oversimplification and "that isn't
the way it works at all" posts.

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.

Ears? An SPL meter? A VU meter?

What algorithms are these webpages using to glean this information?

Imagination and made-up science, perhaps?

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(!)

Alternatively, if you were to play Elephunk at what seems like a normal
level to you and then played Brothers In Arms _without adjusting the
volume_ you probably couldn't understand all the words or catch some of
the guitar riffs. This is the problem that "the loudness war" solves
easily. No more touching that pesky volume control (which, I'll admit,
is pretty fiddly with the most common playback equipment these days).



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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "the guitar riffs. This is the problem that "the loudness war" solves easily. No more touching that pesky volume control (which, I'll admit, is pretty fiddly with the most common playback equipment these days). "


Solves - at the expense of fidelity. Problem is these artists and their managers & labels haven't even considers the voltage ramifications of these loud albums. Barry Diament alluded to this in the Loudness section of his fine website, suggesting that loud, overcompressed recordings are forcing audio equipment(consumer anyway) to operate at the lower end of their functional range because their inputs are overloaded.


IE, most CD or DVD/Blu Ray decks output 2 to 3V as listed in the specs. Your integrated amp or receiver might be looking for 1/10th to 1/5 of that voltage! I installed 12dB Harrison Labs attenuators on my receiver's CD and VIDEO inputs, and I cannot begin to describe the subtle but definite inprovement in sound quality from those sources. I can crank my volume up to between 10-12:00 and get smooth, clear sound from most any movie or album I play. I almost never touch any tone controls or my EQ any more! Before installation, I couldn't even turn "A Night At The Opera" up past 9:00, or the Dragons past 8 o'clock. That is simply not how volume controls were designed to work.


And any clipping distortion I hear I know comes from the CD itself - "Radioactive"(Imagine Dragons) comes to mind. HOW this was allowed to be released in this condition is beyond me. The bass on that thing sounds like forcing an AM/FM clock radio to reproduce 30-50Hz bass at 100SPL - ain't gonna happen without getting REAL ugly.

[Sean Conolly]

wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote: "the guitar riffs. This is the problem that "the loudness
war" solves easily. No more touching that pesky volume control (which, I'll
admit, is pretty fiddly with the most common playback equipment these days).
"


Solves - at the expense of fidelity. Problem is these artists and their
managers & labels haven't even considers the voltage ramifications of these
loud albums. Barry Diament alluded to this in the Loudness section of his
fine website, suggesting that loud, overcompressed recordings are forcing
audio equipment(consumer anyway) to operate at the lower end of their
functional range because their inputs are overloaded.


IE, most CD or DVD/Blu Ray decks output 2 to 3V as listed in the specs.
Your integrated amp or receiver might be looking for 1/10th to 1/5 of that
voltage! I installed 12dB Harrison Labs attenuators on my receiver's CD
and VIDEO inputs, and I cannot begin to describe the subtle but definite
inprovement in sound quality from those sources. I can crank my volume up
to between 10-12:00 and get smooth, clear sound from most any movie or album
I play. I almost never touch any tone controls or my EQ any more! Before
installation, I couldn't even turn "A Night At The Opera" up past 9:00, or
the Dragons past 8 o'clock. That is simply not how volume controls were
designed to work.


And any clipping distortion I hear I know comes from the CD itself -
"Radioactive"(Imagine Dragons) comes to mind. HOW this was allowed to be
released in this condition is beyond me. The bass on that thing sounds like
forcing an AM/FM clock radio to reproduce 30-50Hz bass at 100SPL - ain't
gonna happen without getting REAL ugly.

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

Oh you are absolutely correct on what the effect is and how it hurts music,
and yes your intentions are appreciated.

But I seriously doubt that any professional mastering engineer isn't fully
aware of what they are doing to the music - but whomever is paying gets to
call the shots.

Sometimes I also think that the 'iPod' factor comes into play: "why worry
about the quality when the target market is going to listen on an iPod with
earbuds".

Sean

[[email protected]]

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

Sometimes I also think that the 'iPod' factor comes into play: "why worry
about the quality when the target market is going to listen on an iPod with
earbuds".

Sean "


I'm also sure the engineers are aware. And I believe that if just one or two really outstanding ones spine up and plant their feet: "Sorry, But if you want your record turned into sonic mush you'll have to pay someone else", the tide will start turning back on that aspect of the issue. It will take some economic paradigm shifts, AKA loss of business, but I believe the cream will rise to the top to replace revenue earned from the algae of mediocrity.


With regards specifically to your iPod statement: I'm out there in the field, informing consumers even where I work that what playback equipment they buy actually affects how music is produced. It shouldn't, but as you stated above, the tail, to a point, does in fact wag the dog.


When friends and colleagues come to our house the first thing they notice in the living room are the speakers and the rack full of components. That is how uncommon such a sight is in 21st century life!


I encourage folks to just go on EBay, hit the BuyItNow option, and browse the dozens of options of receivers and speakers, from last year's to last century's, that could transform how they listen to and appreciate music and the movies.

Goodwill and Salvation Army are also options, just test before you buy - make sure the things at least turn on. Bring an iPod and an aux cable and headphones. Hook it up to each audio input(even the Tape Loop) and make sure you hear something! If speakers are available, even the wrong impedance dinky bookshelf jobs, no harm in plugging them in for just a 3 min. test listen. Test the tuner too!

Make a difference!

[[email protected]]

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...


I also make recordings for a local group and i attach the following


this recording captures the full dynamic range of loudness of the original performance. Parts of this recording may be lower in volume compared to commercial recordings. To enjoy the full range of this recording, simply turn me up.

and I attach a link to

http://turnmeup.org/

Mark

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/19/2014 10:23 AM, wrote:
I also make recordings for a local group and i attach the following

this recording captures the full dynamic range of loudness of the
original performance. Parts of this recording may be lower in volume
compared to commercial recordings. To enjoy the full range of this
recording, simply turn me up.

Remember when LPs used to say "Play this record loud." Although I think
that wasn't to present the full dynamic range, it was for maximum
annoyance of the parents or neighbors.


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

[Sean Conolly]

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

Sometimes I also think that the 'iPod' factor comes into play: "why worry
about the quality when the target market is going to listen on an iPod with
earbuds".

Sean "


I'm also sure the engineers are aware. And I believe that if just one or
two really outstanding ones spine up and plant their feet: "Sorry, But if
you want your record turned into sonic mush you'll have to pay someone
else", the tide will start turning back on that aspect of the issue. It
will take some economic paradigm shifts, AKA loss of business, but I believe
the cream will rise to the top to replace revenue earned from the algae of
mediocrity.

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

Sounds like the kiss of death to me, especially when people will simply take
their business somewhere else or worse, buy some stupid 'mastering' box and
squash it themselves.

The only thing that moves the market is market pressure. You need to
convince the buyers, and they will vote with their feet to convince the
producers.

For example, everywhere on the planet you can buy small cars with tiny
diesel engines that get great fuel mileage - everywhere but the USA. In the
USA the market perception is that diesel engines are for big vehicles, so
none of the domestic companies and only one import company (Volkswagen)
offer small diesel engines. And for Volkswagen diesel sales are a fraction
of their overall sales here, which bears out the market assessment. Ford and
Chevy both produce fine small diesel engines, but only for non-domestic
sales.

So kudos to your heartfelt efforts, but personally I wouldn't get too
emotionally invested in the cause.

Sean

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Alternatively, if you were to play Elephunk at what seems like a normal
level to you and then played Brothers In Arms _without adjusting the
volume_ you probably couldn't understand all the words or catch some of
the guitar riffs. This is the problem that "the loudness war" solves
easily. No more touching that pesky volume control (which, I'll admit,
is pretty fiddly with the most common playback equipment these days).

Given pop radio processes their output to hell and back, why is it
necessary to do the same to the version for sale? That's why the
explanation usually given - to make it sound loud on the radio - is total
bollox.

--
*Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have *

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/19/2014 12:09 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Given pop radio processes their output to hell and back, why is it
necessary to do the same to the version for sale? That's why the
explanation usually given - to make it sound loud on the radio - is total
bollox.

One of the few explanations given is so that it will sound loud when the
radio station music director plays it on the boombox in his office. This
will (supposedly) suggest to him that he should put it on the station's
rotation. This is kind of outmoded though, because most major market
radio stations get their music from a service and never see the same CD
that the music lover buys.

The reason for "loudness" processing in the broadcast chain is so that
the _station_ will sound loud when you're scanning the dial. Bob Orban,
who makes one of the most popular broadcast processors states clearly
that music mastered for maximum loudness will sound worse when going
through his processor than if it had reasonable dynamic range and no
clipping. But try to tell that to a producer or record company executive.


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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
One of the few explanations given is so that it will sound loud when the
radio station music director plays it on the boombox in his office. This
will (supposedly) suggest to him that he should put it on the station's
rotation. This is kind of outmoded though, because most major market
radio stations get their music from a service and never see the same CD
that the music lover buys.

Quite. But when I was dealing with such things we used to get a
pre-release copy for 'listening'. At one time cassette, then DAT. Both
peaked to maximum plus.

The reason for "loudness" processing in the broadcast chain is so that
the _station_ will sound loud when you're scanning the dial. Bob Orban,
who makes one of the most popular broadcast processors states clearly
that music mastered for maximum loudness will sound worse when going
through his processor than if it had reasonable dynamic range and no
clipping. But try to tell that to a producer or record company executive.

I did hope that one day we'd be able to buy recordings exactly as they
left the studio - and that the artist was also happy with. 'Mastering'
should have been kept solely for vinyl, where it is needed. But not for
digital.

--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

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

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
John Williamson: 90% ehh?

Break that down for me, provide proof.

At least my intentions are good!

Your intentions are good, but it's very clear you don't understand the
problem either politically or technically, and your constant harping on
and misinformation does damage to your own cause. What I find more offensive
is that it does damage to _my_ cause.

I have fought strongly against hypercompression for many years, and your
yammering is making the fight more difficult rather than easier because
all of this junk is discrediting the idea you claim to support.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Alternatively, if you were to play Elephunk at what seems like a normal
level to you and then played Brothers In Arms _without adjusting the
volume_ you probably couldn't understand all the words or catch some of
the guitar riffs. This is the problem that "the loudness war" solves
easily. No more touching that pesky volume control (which, I'll admit,
is pretty fiddly with the most common playback equipment these days).

Given pop radio processes their output to hell and back, why is it
necessary to do the same to the version for sale? That's why the
explanation usually given - to make it sound loud on the radio - is total
bollox.

In fact, flattopping the album can make it _less_ loud once it goes through
the phase rotator in the Optimod.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

David Plowman (News) wrote: "...explanation usually given - to make it sound loud on the radio - is total bollox."


+++++1!!!


There WAS a good website explaining that very fact: radio processors level everything lifeless. Older more dynamic stuff actually passes through *relatively* unscathed, and actually still resembles it's original sound.

But will clients finally realize this simple concept?

[John Williamson]

On 19/08/2014 19:54, wrote:
David Plowman (News) wrote: "...explanation usually given - to make it sound loud on the radio - is total bollox."


+++++1!!!


There WAS a good website explaining that very fact: radio processors level everything lifeless. Older more dynamic stuff actually passes through *relatively* unscathed, and actually still resembles it's original sound.

But will clients finally realize this simple concept?

Maybe the clients want their music to sound the same no matter how the
customers play it? That is, it sounds the same on their home system from
the CD as it does via MP3, at the club or on the radio. The hard bit is
getting the burbling muddy sound that low bit rate DAB gives you with a
dodgy signal, but I'm sure there's a plugin to do that somewhere. :-/

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 19/08/2014 10:30 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

Which it nothing to do with peaks beingf at 0dBFS or -6dBFS.

TMR is confusing (amongst many other things) peak level with compression
(and hyper-compression) and/or clipping (which could equally be digital
or analogue).

Digitally recorded music will sound essentially identical (apart from
noise floor which is probably inaudible anyway, unless vinyl or bad tape
!) peaking in digital at 0dBFS, and it would at -6dBFS and the analogue
amp gain turned up 6dB !

geoff

[geoff]

On 19/08/2014 10:56 p.m., wrote:


I already know modern CDs are louder than those from the '80s -


A legitimate part of that scenario is because many CDs from the '80s
were still being mastered, or straight transcription of music mastered
for the constraints of vinyl. Put the bass back to where the producer
decides he would like it, and the overall effect is louder.

The down-side of this is that many producers have poor taste and mis-use
the capabilities, today even more-so.


geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
A legitimate part of that scenario is because many CDs from the '80s
were still being mastered, or straight transcription of music mastered
for the constraints of vinyl. Put the bass back to where the producer
decides he would like it, and the overall effect is louder.

Many of the first CDs didn't peak to anywhere near 0dBFS, either.

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

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

[[email protected]]

geoff:

I'll take my "vinyl constrained" original CDs any day over compressed "digital remasters" or brick walled high-res downloads, thank you very much.

[[email protected]]

geoff:

I'll take my "vinyl constrained" original CDs any day over compressed "digital remasters" or brick walled high-res downloads, thank you very much.

And damn any 'professional' engineer who insists either of the latter two are better!

[[email protected]]

David Plowman wrote: " Many of the first CDs didn't peak to anywhere near 0dBFS, either."

Actually, a lot of mine do peak between -4 to -1dBFS, but only on occasion. None of them, however, produce in a DAW that straight "picket fence" waveform all too familiar in remasters and even new albums that haven't quite been brick walled.

Picket fence wave forms are about as musical as a Go~~~amn TOILET SEAT!

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
A legitimate part of that scenario is because many CDs from the '80s
were still being mastered, or straight transcription of music mastered
for the constraints of vinyl. Put the bass back to where the producer
decides he would like it, and the overall effect is louder.

Many of the first CDs didn't peak to anywhere near 0dBFS, either.

I remember doing two or three dubs on the PCM1630 fiddling with different
attenuator positions to get it right up there without actually creating
an over.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:42:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
geoff:



I'll take my "vinyl constrained" original CDs any day over compressed "digital remasters" or brick walled high-res downloads, thank you very much.



And damn any 'professional' engineer who insists either of the latter two are better!

I don't think there's a professional engineer out there who feels that way. A lot of clients do, though, and they sign the checks.

Should the engineers refuse to do brick-wall mastering? In a perfect world they would, but their kids need shoes and three squares a day.

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 18-08-2014 13:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

There is objective science to this, ie. the known behavior of the human
ear. Temporary or not so temporary, also known as deafness, threshold
shift starts with absolute peaks above 100 dB SPL. So if you want to be
able to conduct critical listening you stay below.

Another good reason is that audio playback in the household rarely
exceeds it, household audio is generally designed with a 100 to 104 dB
peak capability in a "standard" living room, or a standard living room
even, I think the DIN norm specifies one.

Back in 1978 or 79 one of my friends had the great good fortune of being
able to deploy the workplaces B&K peak hold meter. He brought it to a
cross-over evaluation - I was using Tannoy 12" in rear loaded horn with
a Coral H100 on top, necessary once the original crossover and its
drastic eq was out of the circuit.

The listening level I had found optimum for my use was 100 dB PEAK HOLD,
ie. some 85 dB C FAST. On SLOW that is probably some 75 dB, considering
the known crest factor, yes known because I measured it later, of those
records. I think this fits Mikes actual preference as I understand it.

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

Nah, there is this here Fletcher-Munson curve to consider and the
background noise in the room, so some absolute guidelines are possible,
but guidelines. This because the extent of the moderators hearing damage
may necessitate modification.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 17-08-2014 15:03, None wrote:

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.

You pussy yellowbelly you, if you want to use that language on the
internet then post under your own name like the good people here. Your
points are often interesting, your net behavior likewise, but in a
different way.

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 20/08/2014 10:41 a.m., wrote:
geoff:

I'll take my "vinyl constrained" original CDs any day over compressed "digital remasters" or brick walled high-res downloads, thank you very much.


Hyper-compression and brick-walling have nothing to do with peaks
approaching 0dBFS.

The fact that many much modern mastering, and remasters are done
digitally, has NOTHING to do with the production values, apart from the
media being able to easily reproduce them, good or bad.

The "vinyl constraint" I am referring to is the reduction of bass and
large transients . I am very glad it's gone.

Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to
the 2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!!

Again, you are confusing modern production preferences (the bad ones)
with digital technology, 0dB peaks, and even analogue output level. Each
of these have valid aspects, but you're mixing them all up and giving us
irrelevant and misguided factoids.


geoff

[geoff]

On 20/08/2014 10:42 a.m., wrote:
geoff:

I'll take my "vinyl constrained" original CDs any day over compressed "digital remasters" or brick walled high-res downloads, thank you very much.

And damn any 'professional' engineer who insists either of the latter two are better!


And damn any amateur ****wit who insists on spouting drivel.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to the
2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!!

Pop music recording (in the broadest sense of pop) has never been much about
accuracy. It's no surprise there's a large marker for LPs among pop listeners.
CD transfers of analog master tapes can sound "sterile".

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
CD transfers of analog master tapes can sound "sterile".

Usually because the listener was used to the distortions of vinyl -
without knowing what that implies.

I have loads of early CDs which were in effect just a straight
transcription of the (analogue) master tapes. Usually with a steep fade in
and out between tracks to get rid of tape noise. And apart from that, all
sound infinitely better than the LP. Of course, that may be 'sterile' to
some.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "

Hyper-compression and brick-walling have nothing to do with peaks
approaching 0dBFS. "

Ever hear of makeup gain??

"The fact that many much modern mastering, and remasters are done
digitally, has NOTHING to do with the production values, apart from the
media being able to easily reproduce them, good or bad. "

Correct. But putting "digital" in front of "remastered" means a lot if you're in sales & marketing. And due to rampant bad practices, the term "digitally remastered" has become synonymous with hyper-compressed brickwalled reissues.

"The "vinyl constraint" I am referring to is the reduction of bass and
large transients . I am very glad it's gone.

Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to
the 2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!! "

You're DAMN RIGHT I DO. And the complaints about the compression on the stereo reissues from that year are all over the internet. Sorry to bust your high-falutin' engineering bubble!

"Again, you are confusing modern production preferences (the bad ones)
with digital technology, 0dB peaks, and even analogue output level. Each
of these have valid aspects, but you're mixing them all up and giving us
irrelevant and misguided factoids. "

I'm not mixing up anything. And because most of what we call classics were produced before digital, we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of those legacy albums in modern full-scale terms.


geoff "

[None]

whining little baby K @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
I'm not mixing up anything.

Yes you are. You have no understanding of the technical or business
issues, so you have no understanding of whether you're mixing things
up. Your denial is based on ignorance, idiocy, and stubbornness. But
not understanding.

And because most of what we call classics were produced before
digital, we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of
those legacy albums in modern full-scale terms.

You don't even know what that means, if anything.

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "Pop music recording (in the broadest sense of pop) has never been much about accuracy."

Oh, and over-compressing at the mix stage and brick wall limiting in mastering are? smdh...


"It's no surprise there's a large market for LPs among pop listeners.
CD transfers of analog master tapes can sound "sterile". "

It's because there's *something* those listeners just don't like about the CD versions - they just aren't as informed to the terminology and the reasons behind it. So when they drop the vinyl, - which btw does not tolerate dynamics squashing as well as digital- it's like a sonic revelation in comparison.


Y'know something? You engineers - on here and over at Gearslutz - need to go walk around on something called a STREET. Step away from your DAWs and acoustically treated studios and start interfacing with real listeners, those who buy/download the music you may have had a hand in producing, and ultimately pay your salary & rent.


It might be even more of an eye opener for you than vinyl was for those who have been buying tons of it recently.


See you out there - I already am.

[None]

wrote in message
...
See you out there - I already am.

Way out there.

[None]

yammering moron @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
vinyl, - which btw does not tolerate dynamics squashing as well as
digital-

You're a ****ing moron. Go away.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
And damn any amateur ****wit who insists on spouting drivel.

geoff "


Are you in a race with 'N0ne' to the bottom of the professional conduct barrel or what?


So someone who doesn't toe the "Remasters are always better than the Orig" party line, and kiss some ass while they're at it, is automatically an "amateur ****wit".

God bless you brother.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 11:53, wrote:
geoff wrote: "

Hyper-compression and brick-walling have nothing to do with peaks
approaching 0dBFS. "

Ever hear of makeup gain??

Music with peaks approaching 0dBFS can be completely uncompressed.

Check here for an example

http://www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/Click_2.html

I know it peaks at -1dBFS, because I'm the one that recorded it, did
some minimal mixing on it, and uploaded it. If I'd decided to make it
peak at 0dBFS, all that would still apply.

On the other hand, brick wall limited material does not *need* to peak
at or even near 0dBFS, but that's the fashion.

"The fact that many much modern mastering, and remasters are done
digitally, has NOTHING to do with the production values, apart from the
media being able to easily reproduce them, good or bad. "

Correct. But putting "digital" in front of "remastered" means a lot if you're in sales & marketing. And due to rampant bad practices, the term "digitally remastered" has become synonymous with hyper-compressed brickwalled reissues.

Only because the marketing droids want it that way. Which in turn is due
to the public wanting it that way.

"The "vinyl constraint" I am referring to is the reduction of bass and
large transients . I am very glad it's gone.

So am I.

Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to
the 2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!! "

You're DAMN RIGHT I DO. And the complaints about the compression on the stereo reissues from that year are all over the internet. Sorry to bust your high-falutin' engineering bubble!

You prefer it because that's the first version you heard. This is
extremely common. If you'd heard the 2009 version first, you would
prefer that.

Even ignoring the terrible artifacts and poor signal to noise ratio on
the original.

"Again, you are confusing modern production preferences (the bad ones)
with digital technology, 0dB peaks, and even analogue output level. Each
of these have valid aspects, but you're mixing them all up and giving us
irrelevant and misguided factoids. "

I'm not mixing up anything. And because most of what we call classics were produced before digital, we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of those legacy albums in modern full-scale terms.

This is easily done. Digitise the classic version, then use the metering
in a DAW.

You asked me earlier to point out examples of you posting rubbish. You
post is a prime example. Every single point you make in it shows your
lack of appreciation of commercial, artisitic and technical factors in
recording.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 13:06, wrote:
So someone who doesn't toe the "Remasters are always better than the Orig" party line, and kiss some ass while they're at it, is automatically an "amateur ****wit".

God bless you brother.

The real ****wit is the one who continually has things explained to him
by people far more experienced and talented than he is, but refuses to
learn anything from that explanation.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/08/2014 12:07, wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Pop music recording (in the broadest sense of pop) has never been much about accuracy."

Oh, and over-compressing at the mix stage and brick wall limiting in mastering are? smdh...

Nobody has said that. You are the only one here that thinks that is a
relevant opinion.

"It's no surprise there's a large market for LPs among pop listeners.
CD transfers of analog master tapes can sound "sterile". "

It's because there's *something* those listeners just don't like about the CD versions - they just aren't as informed to the terminology and the reasons behind it. So when they drop the vinyl, - which btw does not tolerate dynamics squashing as well as digital- it's like a sonic revelation in comparison.

Vinyl *demands* amplitude squashing. And reduction of bass. *And* has a
higher intrinsic distortion and noise than CD.

To quote Scotty in Star trek "Ye cannae change the laws of physics"

Y'know something? You engineers - on here and over at Gearslutz - need to go walk around on something called a STREET. Step away from your DAWs and acoustically treated studios and start interfacing with real listeners, those who buy/download the music you may have had a hand in producing, and ultimately pay your salary & rent.

If what they wanted and bought had a good dynamic range, that it what
engineers would produce.

As the record buying public *don't* buy stuff with that, they don't
produce it. It's called a free market.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "On 20/08/2014 11:53, wrote:
geoff wrote: "

Hyper-compression and brick-walling have nothing to do with peaks
approaching 0dBFS. "

Ever hear of makeup gain??

Music with peaks approaching 0dBFS can be completely uncompressed.

Check here for an example

http://www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/Click_2.html

I know it peaks at -1dBFS, because I'm the one that recorded it, did
some minimal mixing on it, and uploaded it. If I'd decided to make it
peak at 0dBFS, all that would still apply.

On the other hand, brick wall limited material does not *need* to peak
at or even near 0dBFS, but that's the fashion.

"The fact that many much modern mastering, and remasters are done
digitally, has NOTHING to do with the production values, apart from the
media being able to easily reproduce them, good or bad. "

Correct. But putting "digital" in front of "remastered" means a lot if you're in sales & marketing. And due to rampant bad practices, the term "digitally remastered" has become synonymous with hyper-compressed brickwalled reissues.

Only because the marketing droids want it that way. Which in turn is due
to the public wanting it that way.
____________
Prove that the public wants it "that way": Brick walled & squashed.

They bought the remasters because they had faith, without knowledge, that those making the remasters were doing something of benefit to them.
___________________


"The "vinyl constraint" I am referring to is the reduction of bass and
large transients . I am very glad it's gone.

So am I.

Listen to an "original" release of (say) Abbey Road, and then listen to
the 2009 digital remaster. Are you suggesting you prefer the old ?!! "

You're DAMN RIGHT I DO. And the complaints about the compression on the stereo reissues from that year are all over the internet. Sorry to bust your high-falutin' engineering bubble!

You prefer it because that's the first version you heard. This is
extremely common. If you'd heard the 2009 version first, you would
prefer that.

Even ignoring the terrible artifacts and poor signal to noise ratio on
the original.

"Again, you are confusing modern production preferences (the bad ones)
with digital technology, 0dB peaks, and even analogue output level. Each
of these have valid aspects, but you're mixing them all up and giving us
irrelevant and misguided factoids. "

I'm not mixing up anything. And because most of what we call classics were produced before digital, we must be able to correlate the avg and peak levels of those legacy albums in modern full-scale terms.

This is easily done. Digitise the classic version, then use the metering
in a DAW.

You asked me earlier to point out examples of you posting rubbish. You
post is a prime example. Every single point you make in it shows your
lack of appreciation of commercial, artisitic and technical factors in
recording.
- show quoted text -"

Yes, I do lack appreciation - for the ignorance of the artists and labels who demand loudness processing and squashing dynamics, and for engineers who always fold up like a two-dollar suitcase instead of sticking to established audio principles.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "The real ****wit is the one who continually has things explained to him "

This type of name-calling does nothing to further the discourse.