[[email protected]]

The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.

Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you can't cross.

So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.

With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for loudness.

M

[jazzman31[_2_]]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:17:58 PM UTC-3:30, wrote:
The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.

Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you can't cross.

So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.

With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for loudness.

M

Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bus compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be left to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Barring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Rick

[[email protected]]

jazzman31: "- show quoted text -
Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bus compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be left to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Barring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Rick "

Movies shown in theaters with Dolby this or THX that have to
have their audio mastered so that they are at the appropriate
playback volume at levels specified by those companies.

Lately, theater operators have complaining that on some movies,
they have to dial back their volume settings because the loudest
parts of some film audio are *too* loud. I.E. the people watching
"Circle of Friends" in the auditorium adjacent to "The Force
Awakens" can hear ship hatch doors slamming shut or explosions
from laser fire as clearly as those in THAT room! LOL

Perhaps a case of too much - or forced - dynamic range.
So while average levels might be going up in some new
releases, it might not always be overall loudness driving that
trend.

[Trevor]

On 15/01/2016 2:12 AM, david gourley wrote:
said...news:f2b2d602-0b62-4340-956a-
What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.

He didn't say that, but he did say 'depending on material.' Did you happen
to chat with any FOH mixers and ask how they were specifically using
said compressors? Maybe some were combination units that were being used
as gates instead. All you have to do is ask.



I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
on those.

Were there any parts of the performances that you didn't like and could
point out that 'compressors in the processor racks' were directly
responsible? Again, you should talk with some FOH and monitor mixers.
You can express your concerns and have a chance to be more informed on how
compression is being used in a live setting.

Please don't give him ideas, the last thing real sound guys need is to
deal with people like Thekma. I politely answer sensible questions when
I can, but otherwise I just say I'm too busy to talk. (and usually am)
I'm sure most sound crews do the same.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/01/2016 6:47 AM, wrote:
The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.
Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you can't cross.

They sure try hard though. :-(

So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.

No, they can ALL get to zero now. The race now seems to be how many
consecutive zero's you can have before too many people complain.


With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for loudness.

As long as you don't need to play it back with any normal cartridge.
There were some records made that even the best cartridges couldn't
track properly, let alone Joe averages. Not something you have to worry
about with digital thankfully.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Please don't give him ideas, the last thing real sound guys need is to
deal with people like ThekmaNROCKS(edited for clarification)"

Hey Tre, In this in and in other threads you said things
that largely echoed what I had issues with, in some
instances that I recognized you for and agreed with.

So what the hell does the above in quotes mean,
Tre(abbreviated to emphasize a point)?

[geoff]

On 17/01/2016 3:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 16/01/2016 6:47 AM, wrote:
The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.
Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you
can't cross.

They sure try hard though. :-(

So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.

No, they can ALL get to zero now. The race now seems to be how many
consecutive zero's you can have before too many people complain.


With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for
loudness.

As long as you don't need to play it back with any normal cartridge.
There were some records made that even the best cartridges couldn't
track properly, let alone Joe averages. Not something you have to worry
about with digital thankfully.

Trevor.



I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

geoff "


So I'm not the only one who noticed that! I
have that 1812 on Telarc CD, complete with
"Warning: Digital Cannons!" faux stickers
front and back.


Yes, cannons must have had 12-20dB limiting
applied to them based on examination in my
DAW, so the rest of the piece could be
'commercially' loud enough - by late '80s
standards - when the thing was released.


In comparison, I have Steamroller's Fresh
Aire VI, which I must keep my volume 2/3
of the way up to hear it comfortably loud.
I'm still unprepared for the transients on it
after three listenings! They reallly jump out!

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 17/01/2016 3:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for
loudness.

As long as you don't need to play it back with any normal cartridge.
There were some records made that even the best cartridges couldn't
track properly, let alone Joe averages. Not something you have to worry
about with digital thankfully.

I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

That's because of out of phase stuff... the groove just becomes so shallow
at the point of the cannon shot that unless your antiskate is perfect you
can't play it through.

These days it is very common for DJ records to be cut insanely hot, far
hotter than anyone ever thought possible when the RIAA standards were
written. In great part this is because too many clubs have issues with
isolation where the feedback from the speakers leaking into the phono
table limits the maximum phono gain possible.

Because of this sort of thing, there were a number of technological
innovations made in the 1980s to permit super wide excursion cutting, and
correspondindingly DJ cartridges are now designed to track very wide lateral
excursions. They still don't do well with wide vertical excursions though,
so limiting L-R becomes a big deal. Also the whole system gets slew-limited
of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[david gourley[_2_]]

Trevor :

On 15/01/2016 2:12 AM, david gourley wrote:
said...news:f2b2d602-0b62-4340-956a-
What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.

He didn't say that, but he did say 'depending on material.' Did you
happen to chat with any FOH mixers and ask how they were specifically
using said compressors? Maybe some were combination units that were
being used as gates instead. All you have to do is ask.



I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
on those.

Were there any parts of the performances that you didn't like and could
point out that 'compressors in the processor racks' were directly
responsible? Again, you should talk with some FOH and monitor mixers.
You can express your concerns and have a chance to be more informed on
how compression is being used in a live setting.

Please don't give him ideas, the last thing real sound guys need is to
deal with people like Thekma. I politely answer sensible questions when
I can, but otherwise I just say I'm too busy to talk. (and usually am)
I'm sure most sound crews do the same.

Trevor.



No doubt, and that's why I said he could just ask. What's wrong with
trying to give him a positive idea on learning something? Maybe if he
heard it explained in person and not from being behind a keyboard he may
get a more direct understanding of how some of these things actually work.
Or not.

david

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 12:49 AM, wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

geoff "


So I'm not the only one who noticed that! I
have that 1812 on Telarc CD, complete with
"Warning: Digital Cannons!" faux stickers
front and back.


Yes, cannons must have had 12-20dB limiting
applied to them based on examination in my
DAW, so the rest of the piece could be
'commercially' loud enough - by late '80s
standards - when the thing was released.


In comparison, I have Steamroller's Fresh
Aire VI, which I must keep my volume 2/3
of the way up to hear it comfortably loud.
I'm still unprepared for the transients on it
after three listenings! They reallly jump out!



Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 3:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Also the whole system gets slew-limited
of course.
--scott



Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of a
stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 8:06 a.m., geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 3:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Also the whole system gets slew-limited
of course.
--scott



Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)

geoff



..... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff "

By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.

So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff "

By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.

So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84...m_Vinyl_Record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogotVeBO6M

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 7:06:21 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff "

By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.

So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84...m_Vinyl_Record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogotVeBO6M

'57....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...s/chancesr.mp3

Jack
geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 6:04 AM, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 12:49 AM, wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

geoff "


So I'm not the only one who noticed that! I
have that 1812 on Telarc CD, complete with
"Warning: Digital Cannons!" faux stickers
front and back.


Yes, cannons must have had 12-20dB limiting
applied to them based on examination in my
DAW, so the rest of the piece could be
'commercially' loud enough - by late '80s
standards - when the thing was released.


In comparison, I have Steamroller's Fresh
Aire VI, which I must keep my volume 2/3
of the way up to hear it comfortably loud.
I'm still unprepared for the transients on it
after three listenings! They reallly jump out!



Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....


Obviously he meant the CD version of the same recording. The vinyl was
pointless IMO because it was recorded digitally anyway, and even many
good cartridges soon damaged the groove by mistracking.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 8:50 AM, geoff wrote:

Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)

.... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)


The laser head IS moving and DOES have inertia of course. It just
doesn't affect the recovered data.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 11:06 AM, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff "

By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.

So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP.

Yep, digital tapes. Recorded Sept 1978. Copyright date of first release
is 1979.


Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 18/01/2016 11:06 AM, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -


Yep, digital tapes. Recorded Sept 1978. Copyright date of first release
is 1979.


Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

Trevor. "


Too bad it wasn't done like that Steamroller CD I mentioned -
I wouldn't mind having to crank up the 1812 CD that way(to
nearly 2 o'clock) and really FEEL those cannon blasts! LOL

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 3:34 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 18/01/2016 8:50 AM, geoff wrote:

Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)

.... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)


The laser head IS moving and DOES have inertia of course. It just
doesn't affect the recovered data.

Trevor.



OK how about " Not moving relating to the content of the data." ? The
sled is of course moving ;-)

geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 2:00 PM, geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 3:34 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 18/01/2016 8:50 AM, geoff wrote:

Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)

.... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)


The laser head IS moving and DOES have inertia of course. It just
doesn't affect the recovered data.

OK how about " Not moving relating to the content of the data." ? The
sled is of course moving ;-)

Not just the sled, the laser is also VC driven independently of the
sled. Then there is focus as well. Lots of motion, lots of inertia. :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor, et al:

I'm reading a lot of talk in the most recent replies to this
thread of the laser/movement hardware inside CD players.
I would assume no one is suggesting that more dynamic
audio, in digital form, accelerates wear & tear on a CD
read assembly as it would, in analog form, do so to a
stylus/cartridge assembly on a turntable.

[JackA]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:26:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Trevor, et al:

I'm reading a lot of talk in the most recent replies to this
thread of the laser/movement hardware inside CD players.
I would assume no one is suggesting that more dynamic
audio, in digital form, accelerates wear & tear on a CD
read assembly as it would, in analog form, do so to a
stylus/cartridge assembly on a turntable.

I'm sure the movement in CD player are made cheap!! Why they wear out so quickly. Like cars of today - junk, disposable.

Let's go back in the days of VCRs. Most retail ones, even expensive, had fair still frame capability. But a friend got a commercial(?) unit from a school, a Panasonic, and I NEVER seen a stiller frame ever!! Was hard to believe.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff "

By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.

So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84...m_Vinyl_Record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogotVeBO6M

The original 1978 LP was made from a Soundstream digital master, which is
why it was possible to get that crazy low end on there in the first place.

The early Telarc CDs were made on a Sony recorder, taking analogue signal
from the output of the Soundstream machine in the mastering room, since
format and sample rate conversion were nontrivial back at that time. There
was audible loss in the process, but that's how it goes.

What the signal path for the current CDs and LPs are, I do not know.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

And yours might not be the same. If the matrix numbers don't match, don't
assume the mastering path was the same.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
"Do you ever go to grown-up concerts? Most everyone here can listen to music that's
not overcompressed"


So groups like Kansas, Beach Boys, and Kool & The
Gang are for kids huh? And I never considered any of
their works, in concert or as ORIGINALLY released on
vinyl or CD, to be excessively processed. Remasters
of those groups' efforts, on the other hand, leave me
less than as impressed as I was by the originals.

I don't know about Kansas or Kool and the Gang, but if you go see the
current incarnation of the Beach Boys with Mark Newman on FOH, you
won't hear much compression at all.

They are using the PM5D which does have internal compression available,
but the band itself is very tight, the arrangements are built to fit
together so nobody is stepping on one another, so the amount of compression
and even gain riding needed is minimal. Newman is a smart person with good
ears, and he's working in halls where you can have real dynamics.

PA people in general are very suspicious of compression because anything
that brings levels up can eat into their GBF. Guys like the Beach Boys
have plenty of GBF to work with because their stage levels are controlled
and their halls are good and their PA crew is good, but even so there is
no reason to waste it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jazzman31 wrote:

Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "=
mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bu=
s compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be lef=
t to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could =
be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Bar=
ring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at=
least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often=
they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a =
film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Oh, usually the film guys get stems rather than the full mix, so they can
adjust the various elements inside the mix specifically for the film. They
also will frequently re-edit the music so that, for example, particular
movements in the picture fall on the beat or on particular notes.

So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
mix than the original song.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "jazzman31 wrote:

Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "=
mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bu=
s compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be lef=
t to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could =
be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Bar=
ring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at=
least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often=
they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a =
film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Oh, usually the film guys get stems rather than the full mix, so they can
adjust the various elements inside the mix specifically for the film. They
also will frequently re-edit the music so that, for example, particular
movements in the picture fall on the beat or on particular notes.

So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
mix than the original song.
- show quoted text -"


And on your last note, I, for one, think it would be cool
to releas a few compilations of 'film' versions of songs
appearing in movie soundtracks. Shouldn't be too
difficult for them to do. I'm sure there's a market for it.

[John Williamson]

On 25/01/2016 15:11, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "jazzman31 wrote:

So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
mix than the original song.



And on your last note, I, for one, think it would be cool
to releas a few compilations of 'film' versions of songs
appearing in movie soundtracks. Shouldn't be too
difficult for them to do. I'm sure there's a market for it.

Not unless they can also include the video to go with them, as the
changes made often sound *very* odd without the video and other sound
to help make sense of them.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 21/01/2016 3:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

And yours might not be the same. If the matrix numbers don't match, don't
assume the mastering path was the same.

I never assume anything! :-)
(the mastering path was not mentioned)
Which is not to say you are not correct if there was another version.

Trevor.

[jazzman31[_2_]]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:32:21 AM UTC-3:30, Scott Dorsey wrote:
jazzman31 wrote:

Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "=
mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bu=
s compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be lef=
t to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could =
be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Bar=
ring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at=
least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often=
they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a =
film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Oh, usually the film guys get stems rather than the full mix, so they can
adjust the various elements inside the mix specifically for the film. They
also will frequently re-edit the music so that, for example, particular
movements in the picture fall on the beat or on particular notes.

So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
mix than the original song.
--scott

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

Right. Thanks for that. I just find it hard to believe the cost of doing major releases and_not_getting an actual mix that works. One of the worst of late was that flick "Special Correspondents" one of the lamest soundtracks, worst music to dialog mix I've come across. About 20 db more than necessary in places. BBC seems to have the right idea for the most part. I used to think it was my tv, but definitely it's the mixers at the soundstage.

[Scott Dorsey]

jazzman31 wrote:
Right. Thanks for that. I just find it hard to believe the cost of doing ma=
jor releases and_not_getting an actual mix that works. One of the worst of =
late was that flick "Special Correspondents" one of the lamest soundtracks,=
worst music to dialog mix I've come across. About 20 db more than necessar=
y in places. BBC seems to have the right idea for the most part. I used to =
think it was my tv, but definitely it's the mixers at the soundstage.

The problem is that there are now far more new and different ways for things
to go wrong between the dubbing theatre and your home.

If you're listening in mono to something that was originally mixed for 5.1
and then folded back to stereo at the local TV station and then summed to mono
at your TV, all bets are off about what the end result is going to be.

Which is unfortunate since probably the majority of TV viewers are doing
just that.
--scott

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

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2016 11:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
If you're listening in mono to something that was originally mixed for 5.1
and then folded back to stereo at the local TV station and then summed to mono
at your TV, all bets are off about what the end result is going to be.

Which is unfortunate since probably the majority of TV viewers are doing
just that.

Possibly true a decade or more ago, but I can't remember the last TV or
home theatre setup I've seen with mono sound. Now many TV's do have
terrible sound, but most are stereo. The lack of sound quality thus has
nothing to do with being mono. And most programs these days have both
5.1 and stereo audio, so the 5.1 mix is rarely "folded back to stereo
*at the local TV station*". It may be at your TV when a 5.1 mix is
broadcast though.

Trevor.