[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

Geoff:

I understand that dBu measures volts and that dBfs measures dB, but
the -18dB correlation exists ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

There are idiots in any village, but output - or input voltage - is
irrelevant, only distance to clipping point matters.

Recording engineers tracking on a digital desk generally aim for
average level of -18 to -14dBfs.

In live recording yes, and the we are happy if the actual show doesn't clip
the recorder anyway.

I can cite at least a dozen
instances of where this is spelled out. It is YOU GUYS who are
operating in a usenet vacuum and that don't get it!

Which is to say that recent debate has enhanced your understanding, since
you now speak in the only meaningful term: dB below clip.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/18/2013 5:16 PM, wrote:

I understand that dBu measures volts and that dBfs measures dB, but
the -18dB correlation exists ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

This is ambiguous as it stands. What the "-18 dB" means is that the
nominal input level, whatever that is (typically +4 dBu for "pro"
equipment) produces a digital level of -18 dBFS.

On a device that has an input level control like a DAT recorder, I send
a tone to my console and set the console so that the output VU meters
read 0, then adjust the input level control on the DAT so the DAT's
meters read -18 dBFS, or -16, or maybe -14, or -20, depending on what
I'm doing. There's no law or standard that says I have to do anything
different.

Many computer audio interfaces today have no input level control, so if
you want a number, you'll have to find it yourself by using a calibrated
generator or meter. Or look at the manufacturer's data sheet. Sometimes
it's correct but you need to know how to interpret it. When I review
something where it's relevant, I usually say something like "at maximum
input gain (or leave that out if the input gain is fixed), an input
level of +22 dBu (or whatever it is) produces full scale digital level."
That's meaningful (unless I made a typo).



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/18/2013 5:54 PM, wrote:

Scenario(don't fall asleep!): Suppose hypercompression were practical
by 1970-1975. Do you think music would have been mixed/mastered the
way it has been in this century?

What you call "hypercompression" was certainly practical in those days.
Most people had the good taste not to push it that far. But compromises
in dynamic range were often made in the mastering room (you know, that
place where they cut lacquers) to make the whole project fit on the
disk. This is not a problem with CDs.




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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

John Williamson wrote:

wrote:
Geoff:

The -18dB reference seems to have started with the metering on a
Panasonic DAT unit, for what it's worth.

And what it means is that if you have a recordings setup that matches a tape
recorder magnetizing analog tape at 185 nw at zero VU, then you align that
zero VU point to -18 dB full scale on the digital recorder. Since it is well
known and described in the literature that a VU meter can overlook short
peaks at least +15 dB and worst case +20 dB it is not even conservative, it
is "kinda daring". It is the aligment point to set the 0 VU tone at in case
your prefer the blissfull ignorance of looking solely at a VU meter. Adjust
for -12 if you use an IEC standard peak meter, those very rarely are worse
than under-indicating by 10 dB.

The recommendation I am aware of for using the digital recorders meters is
to steer well clear of the uppermost bit to allow for worst case signals
that the meters might not get right and "concert effort". What you then
learn having a Panasonic of that vintage (SV3700 or SV3800) is that it
sounds boring if you do NOT use the uppermost bit ... and running a lot of
channels just setting them up to peak at -12 is best for your sanity, you
then need to be able to set and forget. AND you need to test the actual
recording rig so that you know whether it clips nice or clips nasty.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

John Williamson: "- show quoted text -
In the 70s and 80s, heavy compression wasn't so easy to do as it is
today, and part of increasing the perceived volume on playback was to
remove the energy and headroom sapping low frequencies. It also made
the
tracks more radio friendly when played on AM stations.
- show quoted text -"

Scenario(don't fall asleep!): Suppose hypercompression were practical
by 1970-1975.

sanity check. it wasn't.

Do you think music would have been mixed/mastered the
way it has been in this century?

No, live instrument sound still was the reference and it was still a good
rule to have done classical before pop and studio recordings were produced
to sound a la live shows. Now it is vice-versa, and some sound engineers do
not seem to know what live sound and that there "stereo" is about.

(I shudder at the thought..)

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen: "sounds boring if you do NOT use the uppermost bit ... and running a lot of
channels just setting them up to peak at -12 is best for your sanity, you
then need to be able to set and forget. AND you need to test the actual
recording rig so that you know whether it clips nice or clips nasty. "

Sound reasonable.

Peter, et al, you have to understand where I'm coming from. I truly believe that metering drove the loudness war, not loudness in and of itself.

I believe, with every fiber of my existence, that the darkest day in the history of the recording business was the day when Zero migrated to the top of meters on desks and recorders. A sorry day indeed.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I understand that dBu measures volts and that dBfs measures dB, but the -18dB correlation exists ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

Yes, but it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with comparing the two
except for a 1 KHz sine wave. For any other signal, that correlation does
not exist.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/18/2013 7:04 PM, wrote:

Peter, et al, you have to understand where I'm coming from. I truly
believe that metering drove the loudness war, not loudness in and of
itself.

The meters only tell you where you are relative to clipping. How long
the meter stays in one place (and where that place is) gives you an idea
of how loud it is.

Metering didn't drive loudness. Consumers and radio stations drove
loudness. The absolute loudness, in theory, didn't matter, but the
uniformity did. Listeners who made playlists of songs selected from
numerous sources didn't want to keep adjusting the playback volume, they
wanted a standard, uniform level.

The broadcast industry wanted its own station to be the loudest on the
dial without having to trust the DJs to set the knobs right, so levels
kept creeping up to keep up with the WXYZs. And of course there needed
to be a hard limit to prevent exceeding the FCC's regulations about
overmodulation. Listeners got used to it.

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

"Metering didn't drive loudness. Consumers and radio stations drove
loudness. The absolute loudness, in theory, didn't matter, but the
uniformity did. Listeners who made playlists of songs selected from
numerous sources didn't want to keep adjusting the playback volume, they
wanted a standard, uniform level. "
Thats why things like Apple's Soundcheck, and MP3Gain exist.


"The broadcast industry wanted its own station to be the loudest on the
dial without having to trust the DJs to set the knobs right, so levels
kept creeping up to keep up with the WXYZs. And of course there needed
to be a hard limit to prevent exceeding the FCC's regulations about
overmodulation. Listeners got used to it.
- show quoted text -"

That's radio. They have plenty of lawnmowers, buzz-cutters and steamrollers to keep the sound consistent. Things recording and mastering engineers have no business meddling in. They're only responsible for cutting the occasional 6minute magnum opus "down to 3:05" if called for.

[PStamler]

On Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:16:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Geoff:



I understand that dBu measures volts and that dBfs measures dB, but the -18dB correlation exists ALL OVER THE INTERNET.



Recording engineers tracking on a digital desk generally aim for average level of -18 to -14dBfs. I can cite at least a dozen instances of where this is spelled out. It is YOU GUYS who are operating in a usenet vacuum and that don't get it!

-----

Do you not see that you've just contradicted yourself? An average level of -18 to -14dBFS is not -18dBFS. It's a range of levels. (Incidentally, in the real world, often the bottom of that range is -20dBFS rather than -18dBFS.. Many film and video studios use the "0 v.u. = -20dBFS" standard, and last I heard NPR insists on it.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
...

I've heard the allegations that early ADCs and DACs were inferior to
what
is used today, but the reason I think some people think they sounded
bad
was because they were relatively low in level(RMS) with lots of
dynamics.

There was considerable improvement in the performance of ADCs and DACs
between 1983 (first CD players) and 1986-1989 (second generation
equipment).

Well, sort of.

The two first generation chipsets both used 14 bit converters with 4x
oversampling to get 16 bits. The end result of this was a reduction in
filtering artifacts.

The above describes the first commercial Philips/Magnavox player, but it
in
no way describes the Sony CDP 101.

The Sony CDP 101 used a single really good 8 bit DAC that was scaled by
256
and whose output held in a sample-and-hold to provide 16 bits. It was also
time shared between the channels. There 4 conversions 44,100 times per
second.

Oh, yes, I forgot about that one! To be honest, I never heard one of
those
through a good playback system so I can't really say anything about it.

I had one back in the day which died in the early 1990s. By chance I managed
to have another one fall into my hands that still works. They don't sound as
bad as their technology might lead you to believe.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
Deep extended bass, strong clear extended treble effortless dynamics and
sound at any audible frequency that is free of audible flutter and wow.

The poor technnical performance of analog was always known and well
documented.

By 1980, all of those problems had been solved with analogue tape except
for the deep extended bass.

Yea tape recorders with 90dB S/N ratio, no wow, no flutter, no distortion,
no compression were readily available...... in Scotts dreams :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
A longer piece of wood is apt to be heavier...
but not if it's wider.

Usually a longer *and* wider pice of wood *is* heavier, but maybe not if
it's thickness is considerably less, or one is balsa perhaps :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
No correlation my ASS: The correlation, generally, is that analog zero is
the equivalent of -18dBfs, but there are variations.

That's simply an arbitrary choice, which is why there are variations.


Of COURSE there's a correlation -

Dead right there is, amazing how sloppy terminology creates so many
arguments.
Obviously he meant no *direct* correlation.

Trevor.

[geoff]

wrote in message
...
Geoff:

I understand that dBu measures volts and that dBfs measures dB, but
the -18dB correlation exists ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

Well it must be true then.


Recording engineers tracking on a digital desk generally aim for average
level of -18 to -14dBfs. I can cite at least a dozen instances of where
this is spelled out. It is YOU GUYS who are operating in a usenet vacuum
and that don't get it!

So which is it , -18 or -14 ?

I am, and I don't. And I don't know any of my peers who do either, and
cannot think of any reason why to choose such an arbitrary level. And there
is no physical or electrical reason that is should be.

Something recorded at whatever -dBu can be brought up to 0dBFS (Or -0.3
which is a common peak level) without any compression whatsoever.

geoff

[geoff]

wrote in message
...
John Williamson:

Then tell hs what we should be aiming for in a mix session on a digital
console.

The operating level on a digital console does not necessarily have anything
to do with the record level on a digital recorder, or post processing levels
in a DAW.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/18/2013 8:32 PM, wrote:

uniformity did. Listeners who made playlists of songs selected from
numerous sources didn't want to keep adjusting the playback volume, they
wanted a standard, uniform level. "

Thats why things like Apple's Soundcheck, and MP3Gain exist.

But "loudness warz" started years before those tools existed. They're
only really useful for collections of older music. New music is, by
default, all peak level all the time.



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

[None]

Chris has BRAIN DAMAGE! @gmail.com farted:

Peter, et al, you have to understand where I'm coming from.

You're coming from an ignorant position, and you refuse
to take an informed position. You've made sure that
everyone understands that.

I truly believe that metering drove the loudness war, not loudness
in and of itself.

You're an idiot. What you believe is based on ignorance.

I believe, with every fiber of my existence,

Please, don't take any more fiber. You're already crapping
so fast you can't keep up with the wiping.

[None]

wrote in message
...
John Williamson:

Then tell hs what we should be aiming for in a mix session on a
digital console.

You should be aiming for an elementary education in
audio before asking. You're like a five-year-old asking
how many MPH is the right speed for driving a car,
but you don't even know how to control a Big Wheel.

But no, you'll just keep listening to the hollow sound
in your empty head, and you'll be back with the same
brain damaged horse ****, over and over again, with
no sign that you have even the remotest clue how
audio works, and no intention of learning.

[None]

wrote in message
...
Geoff:

I understand that dBu measures volts and that dBfs measures dB,

OBviously, you don't understand.

but the -18dB correlation exists ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

Gee, do you think that capitalizing bull**** turns it into
Shinola? There's a lot of brain damage all over the internet.
You're an example. But you don't want to learn, you just
want to jump up and down and throw tantrums.

Recording engineers tracking on a digital desk generally aim for
average level of -18 to -14dBfs. I can cite at least a dozen
instances of where this is spelled out. It is YOU GUYS who are
operating in a usenet vacuum and that don't get it!

The vacuum is in your head, li'l buddy. Why don't
you put on your jammies and go to bed, and stop
bothering the grownups.

[None]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:16:28 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
Do you not see that you've just contradicted yourself?

Unfortunately, Chris has brain damage that prevents
him from understanding such an obvious contradiction.

[[email protected]]

Pstamler wrote: "Do you not see that you've just contradicted yourself? An average level of -18 to -14dBFS is not -18dBFS. It's a range of levels. (Incidentally, in the real world, often the bottom of that range is -20dBFS rather than -18dBFS. Many film and video studios use the "0 v.u. = -20dBFS" standard, and last I heard NPR insists on it. "

Remember "+4"(pro level)?? There's your -14! And my statement was focused only on music, not on the movies - but good point about the movies & NPR. I consider them and Pacifica Radio to have the best fidelity on terrestrial radio PERIOD.

As far as the "0Vu = -20" standard goes, I'd vote for it being MANDATORY, across the board, in a heartbeat! EBU-R128 stipulates -23 for the broadcast chain, so they're really strict.

In any case, I'd also push for Zero to be placed back down at least to -18, or lower - where it belongs! Do you think the vast majority of tracking, mixing, and post engineers, esp those with "studios" in their garages, basements, or attics(!) realize that 0dBfs and 0Vu are not the same thing? That's why they're churning out **** that registers DR6 or less on Foobar, or with crest factors under 3!!!!

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
But your brain is too damaged to understand that
analogue and digital levels are like weight and length; they are
different
measures that are not necessarily related. A longer piece of wood
is apt
to be heavier... but not if it's wider.

It doesn't matter how long the piece of wood is,
or how heavy; if you try to bash some sense into
li'l Chrissie with it, the stick will break on the
dense granite of his empty skull.

[geoff]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 7/18/2013 8:32 PM, wrote:

uniformity did. Listeners who made playlists of songs selected from
numerous sources didn't want to keep adjusting the playback volume, they
wanted a standard, uniform level. "

Thats why things like Apple's Soundcheck, and MP3Gain exist.

But "loudness warz" started years before those tools existed. They're only
really useful for collections of older music. New music is, by default,
all peak level all the time.

But that had nothing to do with 'loudness'.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote: "
"Mike Rivers" wrote

But "loudness warz" started years before those tools existed. They're only
really useful for collections of older music. New music is, by default,
all peak level all the time.

But that had nothing to do with 'loudness'.

geoff "

DUHH! When combined with a RMS of -8FS or higher, all peak all the time has EVERYTHING to do with loudness. A song fitting those parameters will sound 3X as loud as say, one with RMS -17 and some peaks above -1.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/18/2013 8:32 PM, wrote:

uniformity did. Listeners who made playlists of songs selected from
numerous sources didn't want to keep adjusting the playback volume, they
wanted a standard, uniform level. "

Thats why things like Apple's Soundcheck, and MP3Gain exist.

But "loudness warz" started years before those tools existed. They're
only really useful for collections of older music. New music is, by
default, all peak level all the time.

I remember watching guys in the 70s working hard to make 45s as loud as
possible at all cost, mostly for the jukebox market but also because the
gain before feedback at discotheques was often poor (the bass would couple
into the turntable and the whole thing would motorboat if turned up too
high, so a louder record would help).

The techniques were different for the different medium but the basic philosophy
and the end result (ie. bad sound) was more or less the same.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/19/2013 7:16 AM, geoff wrote:

New music is, by default,
all peak level all the time.

But that had nothing to do with 'loudness'.

The "all the time" part of the statement has everything to do with
loudness. An average level with an occasional peak 20 dB higher than
average will still be heard at that average level (though if you turn up
the volume, that peak may become more obvious because it may be clipped
somewhere along the analog chain.

The principle behind "making it loud" is that the peak and average
levels are quite close, hence all the peaks that constitute the
"average" level will be very close to the maximum peak level, and that's
usually just a few tenths of a dB below full scale.


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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: "but your brain is
too damged" Question 1. Are you a MD?

No... but I do have a degree in psychoacoustics!

Question 2. Did you ever perform an EEG, MRI, or any other analysis, in
a hospital environment, on my brain?

Nope, but if you remove it and mail it I'll be happy to check it out.
--scott

Finding it will be the problem. One can pad the packaging to make it
large enough to ship.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig wrote:

wrote:
Scott D. wrote: "Nope, but if you *snip*"

Then SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT BRAIN DAMAGE!!!

Exhibit "A".

The man flocks.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Jeff Henig wrote:
wrote:
Scott D. wrote: "Nope, but if you *snip*"

Then SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT BRAIN DAMAGE!!!

Exhibit "A".

Yes, it does appear a button has been found.
--scott

Yes, and it's right next to the switch.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 7/18/2013 8:32 PM, wrote:

uniformity did. Listeners who made playlists of songs selected from
numerous sources didn't want to keep adjusting the playback volume, they
wanted a standard, uniform level. "

Thats why things like Apple's Soundcheck, and MP3Gain exist.

But "loudness warz" started years before those tools existed. They're
only really useful for collections of older music. New music is, by
default, all peak level all the time.

That's one thing about this rocking man (hey, he has his own horse,
too!) - he thinks the world arrived yesterday, and he's deep into
history.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 7/19/2013 12:20 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: "but your brain is
too damged" Question 1. Are you a MD?

No... but I do have a degree in psychoacoustics!

Question 2. Did you ever perform an EEG, MRI, or any other analysis, in
a hospital environment, on my brain?

Nope, but if you remove it and mail it I'll be happy to check it out.
--scott

Finding it will be the problem. One can pad the packaging to make it
large enough to ship.

....cue scarecrow song from The Wizard of Oz.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

He was a good guy, and made good records, but the pressure to have "the biggest" was
enormous. (At one time didn't JVC boast 20KW cutting amps, or some absurd thing like
that?)

I think the power war there started with guys using McIntosh 275 amps for
cutting, and it just escalated out of control with all kinds of crazy
marketing.

I'm still using those RCA amps with two 7027s per channel... I picked them
up from some folks who dumped them because they needed more power. They
sound fine.
--scott

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

[John Williamson]

None wrote:
wrote in message
...
John Williamson:

Then tell hs what we should be aiming for in a mix session on a
digital console.

You should be aiming for an elementary education in
audio before asking. You're like a five-year-old asking
how many MPH is the right speed for driving a car,
but you don't even know how to control a Big Wheel.

But no, you'll just keep listening to the hollow sound
in your empty head, and you'll be back with the same
brain damaged horse ****, over and over again, with
no sign that you have even the remotest clue how
audio works, and no intention of learning.



Oi! I didn't post that remark.

It was watsisface. The failed rocker...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

wrote in message
...
DUHH!

Brain damage.

[None]

wrote in message
...
Pstamler wrote: "Do you not see that you've just contradicted
yourself? An average level of -18 to -14dBFS is not -18dBFS. It's a
range of levels. (Incidentally, in the real world, often the bottom
of that range is -20dBFS rather than -18dBFS. Many film and video
studios use the "0 v.u. = -20dBFS" standard, and last I heard NPR
insists on it. "

Remember "+4"(pro level)?? There's your -14!

You just keep blathering on about a bunch of random
numbers of dB with random different reference levels,
or none, together with various barrels of apples being
compared with some dB number of orange crates.

You've got your dBFS, dBu, dBSPL, dBV, high, low, eighteen,
plus-fours, minus-tens, six-two-and-even with the uttermost
reliable numeric moron-data from simply the entire boglesphere ...
without having the foggiest notion what any of it means
..
The use of KOOKY KAPS and excessive exclamation
points!!!!!!!!!!!!! adds surrealism. You go away for a while,
but then you come back with the same Stupid that you
started with last time.

As far as the "0Vu = -20" standard goes, I'd vote for it being
MANDATORY, across the board, in a heartbeat! EBU-R128
stipulates -23 for the broadcast chain, so they're really strict.

Wasn't one of your other personalities whining about
some imaginary "nanny state"?

[[email protected]]

That missing low bass can be re-synthesized using the famous dbx "sub-harmonic synthesizer". I'm ashamed to admit I designed this in the late 70's. I humbly apologize to the entire audio community. Except for those who still have disco balls hanging in your basement. You probably loved that box. Maybe still do.
In my defense, it was my very first project after being hired out of college.


Bob

[geoff]

wrote in message
...
Geoff wrote: "
"Mike Rivers" wrote

But "loudness warz" started years before those tools existed. They're
only
really useful for collections of older music. New music is, by default,
all peak level all the time.

But that had nothing to do with 'loudness'.

geoff "

DUHH! When combined with a RMS of -8FS or higher, all peak all the time
has EVERYTHING to do with loudness. A song fitting those parameters will
sound 3X as loud as say, one with RMS -17 and some peaks above -1.

You are still confusing peak level with RMS power content.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote "You are still confusing peak level with RMS power content.

geoff "

Like HELL I am!

SONG A: -18RMS with 30% of loudest peaks above -3dBfs.

SONG B: -8RMS with 90% of peaks above -3dBfs.

Both songs of same genre, similar spectral balance.

YOU tell ME which song is going to sound louder to the average listener out on the street.

Trying to tell me I don't know the diff. between avg & peak level. YUTZ.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

geoff wrote "You are still confusing peak level with RMS power
content.

geoff "

Like HELL I am!

You can go wherever you want to in your vacation.

SONG A: -18RMS with 30% of loudest peaks above -3dBfs.

SONG B: -8RMS with 90% of peaks above -3dBfs.

Percent of loudest peaks is an empty statement. So Geoff is - ahem - right.

Both songs of same genre, similar spectral balance.

I'll get back to this.

YOU tell ME which song is going to sound louder to the average
listener out on the street.

The one with the loudest average level.

Trying to tell me I don't know the diff. between avg & peak level.

Shut up with your peak level statements then and specify average level. Oh,
and having written something well researched and quite authoritative about
peak and average levels, as well as about frequency energy distribution of
music, I can assure you that the one with the highest average level also is
likely to be the one with most energy below 200 Hz.

YUTZ.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen