[Steve[_3_]]

Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down some
audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below 0dbfs). They
seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick for
them being able to get digital levels well above 0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1
without any hideous digital distortion?

Thanks in advance;
Steve

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Steve wrote:

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down some
audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below 0dbfs). They
seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick for
them being able to get digital levels well above 0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1
without any hideous digital distortion?

Compression to bring the average levels up without altering the
peak levels.

This could be done subtly and with skill, or it could be done aggressively
to destroy all dynamics.
--scott

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

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Steve wrote:

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down some
audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below 0dbfs). They
seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick for
them being able to get digital levels well above 0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1
without any hideous digital distortion?

Compression to bring the average levels up without altering the
peak levels.

This could be done subtly and with skill, or it could be done aggressively
to destroy all dynamics.

Forget about any 'musical' content of course.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve" wrote in message


Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am
mixing down some audio tracks and watching my levels
(keeping them well below 0dbfs).

Good.

They seem to be way
lower than tracks on any commercial CD.

What you are saying is that they don't appear to be as loud, no?

What's the trick
for them being able to get digital levels well above 0db
(like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital
distortion?

They don't. Besides the compression that several others mentioned, many
mastering engineers reshape the spectral content of the music.

The basic principle is that it takes about 10 dB more level for a 100 Hz
tone to sound as loud as a 3 KHz tone. At 50 Hz the difference is more like
20 dB.

If you turn down the response at 50 Hz, you can significantly turn up the
response at 3 KHz without causing clipping. Then, the same energy and
over-all digital levels will create the impression of greater loudness. Of
course some warmth will be lost and things may sound shrill and maybe even
tinny. But, it will be louder-sounding.

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve" wrote ...
Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down some
audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below 0dbfs). They
seem to
be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick for them
being able to get digital levels well above 0db (like +3??)

You can't. It is called "Full Scale" because it is litterally
just as far as you can possibly go. There is nothing beyond
0dBFS. It is a fundamental design limit.

at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital distortion?

Commercial CDs are heavily compressed to bring the
apparent loudness up within the limits of 0dBFS. This is
essentially a proliferation of the old "loudness wars" that
radio stations still wage against each other. Human
perception commonly favors the louder, independent of
other qualities.

"Mastering" is a scheme of making various adjustments
(including level, etc.) to the tracks on a CD to achieve the
desired release "sound". For popular commercial releases,
this pretty much ALWAYS includes agressive and sophisticated
compression. Rip a typical commercial CD and view the
waveforms. you will likely be very surprised.

These topics (compression of commercial CDs, and the
process of "mastering") have been discussed many times
in this newsgroup.

[Steve[_3_]]

Now that I look closer to the metering I see that it does stop at 0dbfs. I
was misreadig it in thinking -3 (start of the "red" zone) was actually 0.

Thanks everyone!
Steve


"Steve" wrote in message
...
Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down some
audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below 0dbfs). They
seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick
for them being able to get digital levels well above 0db (like +3??) at
16/44.1 without any hideous digital distortion?

Thanks in advance;
Steve

[Geoff]

Steve wrote:
Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down
some audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below
0dbfs). They seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD.
What's the trick for them being able to get digital levels well above
0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital distortion?

It is not possibl to go +3dBFS. It all stops at 0 .

What you are hearing is 'compression' bringing up the average power content
of the material.

geoff

[hank alrich]

Eeyore wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Steve wrote:

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down
some audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below
0dbfs). They seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD.
What's the trick for them being able to get digital levels well above
0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital distortion?

Compression to bring the average levels up without altering the
peak levels.

This could be done subtly and with skill, or it could be done aggressively
to destroy all dynamics.

Forget about any 'musical' content of course.

As Scott said there are different ways to go about achieving high
levels. Listen to Cookie Marenco's work, for instance. I'm thinking of a
Tony Furtado CD I have that is hotter than hell yet loaded with
musicality. She did a fantastic job of it.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Steve wrote:

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down
some audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below
0dbfs). They seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD.
What's the trick for them being able to get digital levels well above
0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital distortion?

Clipping.

Thanks in advance;
Steve


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 8:32 pm, "Steve" wrote:
Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down some
audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below 0dbfs). They
seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick for
them being able to get digital levels well above 0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1
without any hideous digital distortion?

Thanks in advance;
Steve

http://www.turnmeup.org/
http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/realstereo_list_e.html

there is a movement to quit the bad habits of "LOUD"

[rboy]

On Nov 7, 10:57 pm, "soundhaspriority" wrote:


Steve, one thing you can do is "normalization." This will not, cannot, and
should not produce levels about 0 db, but it does make the track as loud as
it possibly can without any compression or change of relative levels.



Nah. Normalization can't compete with another round of compression/
limiting with the output set at whatever you please.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that commercial CDs are usually
not just compressed but have compression/limiting added at every
stage. Tracking, mixing, mastering. Even if you add as much of it
as you can at the final stage you can't compete in the loudness was
with something that has had the transients nicked off gently (or not)
in several stages.

And as Arny mentioned, lopping off all the low end off things that
don't have much low end to offer also gives you a few nano degrees of
headroom to jam it up into.

[rboy]

you can't compete in the loudness was
with something that has had the transients nicked off gently (or not)
in several stages.


Oh crappers Hoperfully it was clear that that should have been
"loudness wars".

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message...

Take a look at PeakSlammer. It will distort, but
only if abused.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/peakslammer.html


This is a parody, right?

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message...

Take a look at PeakSlammer. It will distort, but
only if abused.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/peakslammer.html

This is a parody, right?

No. I could use it for the party audio I sit with right now, alternating
speeches and hoorays. I think I'll test the levelator instead ....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Steven Sullivan]

geoff wrote:
Steve wrote:
Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I am mixing down
some audio tracks and watching my levels (keeping them well below
0dbfs). They seem to be way lower than tracks on any commercial CD.
What's the trick for them being able to get digital levels well above
0db (like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital distortion?

It is not possibl to go +3dBFS. It all stops at 0 .

No, the sample peaks stop at 0. The reconstructed peaks between two
samples could actually go above that.

0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/Le...per_AES109.pdf





___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Steve wrote:
Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I
am mixing down some audio tracks and watching my levels
(keeping them well below 0dbfs). They seem to be way
lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick
for them being able to get digital levels well above 0db
(like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital
distortion?

It is not possibl to go +3dBFS. It all stops at 0 .

The samples have to stop at FS, but in some odd circumstances, it is
possible for the reconstructed wave to go well above zero.

You can sketch this out quickly on a piece of graph paper. Put dots at
equal horiziontal intervals at 0, FS, FS, and 0. Now draw a smooth curve
through them.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
m
Steve wrote:
Hey all;

Apologies if this question has been asked before but I
am mixing down some audio tracks and watching my levels
(keeping them well below 0dbfs). They seem to be way
lower than tracks on any commercial CD. What's the trick
for them being able to get digital levels well above 0db
(like +3??) at 16/44.1 without any hideous digital
distortion?

It is not possibl to go +3dBFS. It all stops at 0 .

The samples have to stop at FS, but in some odd circumstances, it is
possible for the reconstructed wave to go well above zero.

You can sketch this out quickly on a piece of graph paper. Put dots at
equal horiziontal intervals at 0, FS, FS, and 0. Now draw a smooth curve
through them.

HOWEVER, of course, a digital meter will read the peak as two consecutive
0 dBFS samples, even if an analogue peak-reading meter after the filters
will not.

This was a huge bone of contention back in the late 1980s, at the time
it being considered that it made it essential to look at the digital signal
for metering and never to use analogue metering for level setting in the
digital world.

Gabe Weiner and I discussed the matter here at length, I think.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."