[geoff]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:24:40 AM UTC-5, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message



It came down to money.



It came down to what simply could not be done with analog.
___________
Such as??

Compressing, limiting, and clipping the audio to be able to raise it to a
RMS of 18dBu(-4dBfs) - which would melt most phono pre-amps, and resell
it as "Remastered"?

Yeah, that sounds like money to me.

Um no. Totally wrong and again showing a complete lack of understanding
of remastering, levels, and signal chains.

18dBu has zero to do with -4dBFS, one does

Ooops , read " doesn't ".

geoff

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey:

No correlation my ASS: http://www.soundonsound.com/uploads/...R%202013.jp g From a soundonsound forum thread. Perhaps you should hang out there instead of on a usenet group.

The correlation, generally, is that analog zero is the equivalent of -18dBfs, but there are variations. Of COURSE there's a correlation - how are you supposed to read, on a digital desk, the rms & peak of a track recorded through an analog desk?!

And yes, anyone who thinks you can raise the rms level of a track from -18dbfs to -8dbfs WITHOUT dynamics processing of some sort is on DRUGS - unless the track already had a ridiculously low crest factor to begin with and just needs to be raised in overall level.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:
It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially
NO LOW BASS to speak of.

Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ?

Can't think of a title off the top of my head, but will try.

And then there are ones likeOscar Petersen's 1965 'We Get Requests' which
has wonderful bass (such asw You Look Good To Me), but tinny piano ....

geoff"

A lot of those CDs utilized the same phono master, along with the LF rolloff. Still, they were a lot closer to the original sound than the remasters. I can always restore some of that bottom in my DAW.

[John Williamson]

wrote:
geoff wrote:
It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially
NO LOW BASS to speak of.

Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ?

The fashion in the 70s and 80s was to record pop music top heavy to get
the maximum perceived volume. Yes, it's the loudness wars....

Apart from anything else, lots of deep bass on the disc caused problems
when playing back singles (And a few LPs that I owned) on domestic gear
of the period. Discos just turned up the bass control and used bigger
speakers to get the thump. They also bypassed the rumble filters to get
a bit more bass out at the cost of lower quality.

Your bass heavy and tinny piano 60s track is probably recorded on the
disc at a lower peak level than the 70s stuff, and so needs the volume
turning up to sound as loud.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

mxsmanic wrote: "Soundhaspriority writes:

I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the
ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were
made? Or was it only an isolated problem? "

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.

Those people actually prefer music at higher levels with no dynamic variation.

[Neil[_8_]]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:04:34 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

wrote:
geoff wrote:
It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially
NO LOW BASS to speak of.

Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ?

The fashion in the 70s and 80s was to record pop music top heavy to get
the maximum perceived volume. Yes, it's the loudness wars....

Apart from anything else, lots of deep bass on the disc caused problems
when playing back singles (And a few LPs that I owned) on domestic gear
of the period. Discos just turned up the bass control and used bigger
speakers to get the thump. They also bypassed the rumble filters to get
a bit more bass out at the cost of lower quality.

Your bass heavy and tinny piano 60s track is probably recorded on the
disc at a lower peak level than the 70s stuff, and so needs the volume
turning up to sound as loud.
I thought it was because the tracks were compressed for maximum
volume?
Neil

[John Williamson]

Neil wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:04:34 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

wrote:
geoff wrote:
It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially
NO LOW BASS to speak of.

Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ?

The fashion in the 70s and 80s was to record pop music top heavy to get
the maximum perceived volume. Yes, it's the loudness wars....

Apart from anything else, lots of deep bass on the disc caused problems
when playing back singles (And a few LPs that I owned) on domestic gear
of the period. Discos just turned up the bass control and used bigger
speakers to get the thump. They also bypassed the rumble filters to get
a bit more bass out at the cost of lower quality.

Your bass heavy and tinny piano 60s track is probably recorded on the
disc at a lower peak level than the 70s stuff, and so needs the volume
turning up to sound as loud.
I thought it was because the tracks were compressed for maximum
volume?
Neil

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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey:

No correlation my ASS:
http://www.soundonsound.com/uploads/...R%202013.jp g
From a soundonsound forum thread. Perhaps you should hang out there
instead of on a usenet group.


Maybe you should stop thinking with your ass.
Maybe you should give up on audio and go back
to cleaning bathrooms.

[None]

krissie the kook @gmail.com wrote in message
...
mrs maniac wrote: "Soundhaspriority writes:

Really? You're citing Mrs Maniac, yet another moron troll?
Li'l Chrissie and Li'l Tony. Nary a brain cell between them.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
wrote:
geoff wrote:
It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially
NO LOW BASS to speak of.

Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ?

The fashion in the 70s and 80s was to record pop music top heavy to get
the maximum perceived volume. Yes, it's the loudness wars....

Apart from anything else, lots of deep bass on the disc caused problems
when playing back singles (And a few LPs that I owned) on domestic gear
of the period. Discos just turned up the bass control and used bigger
speakers to get the thump. They also bypassed the rumble filters to get
a bit more bass out at the cost of lower quality.

Then they put the turntables on springs in boxes of sand so that the
conducted vibration through the building structure into the arm didn't
cause so much feedback.

Your bass heavy and tinny piano 60s track is probably recorded on the
disc at a lower peak level than the 70s stuff, and so needs the volume
turning up to sound as loud.

Everybody wants to get more time on a side too, that was always a big deal.

And, once the thing has been issued with no bass, it has become not just
an engineering decision but also an artistic decision. Now if you release
a CD, people will complain that it has too much low end, it doesn't sound
like the original.

I do sort of miss the weird cardboard low end on Itchykoo Park, though.
They fixed it up in all the CD releases (which is sort of ironic since
it would be a lot easier to get the original sound on a CD than it was
on a 45).
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
mxsmanic wrote: "Soundhaspriority writes:

I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the
ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were
made? Or was it only an isolated problem? "

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.

Nahh. Go and get some of the early CD releases and listen to them. The
PCM-1610 sound is all over a lot of them.

Any of the big audiophile demos from the eighties will do... Digital Duke
is a personal favorite for demonstrating a mix of too much spotmiking and
really bad conversion.

Most of the early CDs were as compressed as the LPs they replaced. In fact,
a lot of them were made from the disc mastering prep tapes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:24:40 AM UTC-5, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message



It came down to money.



It came down to what simply could not be done with analog.

Such as??

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.

Most well-informed people were always surprised at how good it could sound,
considering. One common joke of the day among knowlegable people is that if
you had a power amp that performed as poorly as your turntable you would
immediately junk it. Good digital isn't that way. One can test and
quantify the technical limits of just about any power amp with digital gear
that is CD-quality.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have
essentially
NO LOW BASS to speak of.

Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ?


In many cases there were no masters available that had bass below 85 Hz. For
example the entire Motown catalog that was recorded in Detroit went through
consoles with 4th order 85 Hz high pass filters.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

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). There were increases in maximum sample rates after that perhaps
through the beginning of the new millenium, but that does not necessarily
provide any dramatic improvements in sound quality. After the mid-1990s the
major improvments were all about price performance. A $1 DAC today is in
the same league performance wise as the best DACs in the late 1980s that
probably cost $15-30.

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey: "Nahh. Go and get some of the early CD releases and listen to them. The PCM-1610 sound is all over a lot of them.

Any of the big audiophile demos from the eighties will do... Digital Duke
is a personal favorite for demonstrating a mix of too much spotmiking and
really bad conversion.

Most of the early CDs were as compressed as the LPs they replaced. In fact,
a lot of them were made from the disc mastering prep tapes.
- show quoted text -"

1. Over the past year I've replaced nearly half my digital music collection with unremastered original CD rips. AC/DC to ZZ Top. I'm not listening for a "PCM-1610" sound - I'm listening for the MUSIC.

2. As far as compressed LPs go, I'll take a CD from a 70s-era "compressed" lp master over the remaster CD from a modern 24-bit96khz master that's had it's crest factor brickwalled to 1/3 of what it used to be!
By '70s standards, DR12 might seem squashed, but by 2010s standards, it is now considered too soft/too dynamic! smh...

3. In another reply you mentioned folks complaining of "too much bass" on modern CDs. Are you referring to remasters or new artist releases?

Let's not forget that the recording industry is doing things completely backwards. They should NOT be heaping gobs of bottom(or top) on the final product, in accordance with what someone over in "marketing" mandated! They should not be manipulating the dynamics beyond what might have been done 30 years ago - for control purposes.

The technology has existed, and now has even greater potential, to allow the final consumer basic control over playback volume, tone, and dynamics. Consumer wants more bass? Turn up the Bass knob, or manipulate the EQ on their stereo or DJ rig. Difficult listening conditions? Crank up the "Compress" knob or press the button.

Let those of us who want a FLAT presentation leave all those settings out/off.

Again: End the nanny state within the recording profession.

[Scott Dorsey]

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. That's still a huge issue in the analogue world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"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. That's still a huge issue in the analogue
world.

Oh Scott, you may be one of those people who doesn't hear FM distortion very
well. Sorry about that!

If a piece of quality digital gear had the measured FM distortion of the
best analog tape machine ever made, it would be scrapped immediately.

Similarly, listening to a 12 KHz tone recorded on the best analog machines
always reveals the momentary drop outs.

To the best of my knowlege there has never been an analog tape machine whose
audible degradation was not audible in an ABX test.

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

[Scott Dorsey]

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.

SOME of the second generation chipsets used 16 bit converters with no
oversampling, and many of those sounded worse than the first generation
Philips players.

If you count the Yamaha bitscream converters as a second generation technology,
those also had some issues. Very clean at high levels but the idle tones
were severely annoying. I would put those down also as being a step back
in sound quality from the 14-bit Philips designs.

Some of the better players used the second generation chipsets with some
sort of oversampling... for example the CDB460 used the TDA1541 converter
but also used the SAA7220 oversampling filter. And that would have come
out in 1987 I think. That was really a big step forward.

But not all the second generation players took such a step forward.

There were increases in maximum sample rates after that perhaps
through the beginning of the new millenium, but that does not necessarily
provide any dramatic improvements in sound quality. After the mid-1990s the
major improvments were all about price performance. A $1 DAC today is in
the same league performance wise as the best DACs in the late 1980s that
probably cost $15-30.

Thoroughly true, although one of the things that happened was that sigma
delta converters with no idle tone problems were developed, partly by
Yamaha and partly by Crystal Semi. This is what made it possible to build
cheap and good converters; there are far fewer possibilities for nonlinearity
to creep in with with sigma-delta design. Much less trimming, much less
compensation. It's just one regulator and a switch.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"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.

Yet another piece of legacy technology that was surprising in that it was
listenable at all. Every once in a while the trick of time-sharing the
converter showed up in some piece of digital gear - including some and MD
and DAT machines if memory serves.

The CDP 101's time delay between the channels and the non-flat performance
of the analog filters could be audible with some program material and
certain speaker setups.

The scaling kluge actually worked quite well and ended up being adequately
linear.

The machine also had audibly vanishing jitter.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"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. That's still a huge issue in the analogue
world.

Oh Scott, you may be one of those people who doesn't hear FM distortion very
well. Sorry about that!

Could be. I can sure hear it on a 350... but on the ATR-100 I don't hear
any of that "blending" effect that I hear due to the FM flutter on the 350.

The 440 isn't bad... it keeps a sense of separation much better than the
350, but the difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 or Nagra-T in that
regard is amazing.

If a piece of quality digital gear had the measured FM distortion of the
best analog tape machine ever made, it would be scrapped immediately.

Similarly, listening to a 12 KHz tone recorded on the best analog machines
always reveals the momentary drop outs.

Nahh. Maybe in the seventies, and certainly with Quantegy tapes, but not
any more. Things have improved in the analogue world since you last looked,
just like they have in the digital world.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

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.
--scott

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

[None]

wrote in message
...
Again: End the nanny state within the recording profession.

Again: **** off out of here and take your
brain-dead idiocy elsewhere.

[Phil W[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey:
geoff wrote:
wrote in message
Compressing, limiting, and clipping the audio to be able to raise it to
a
RMS of 18dBu(-4dBfs) - which would melt most phono pre-amps, and resell
it
as "Remastered"?

Yeah, that sounds like money to me.

Um no. Totally wrong and again showing a complete lack of understanding
of
remastering, levels, and signal chains.

I have given up trying to explain the difference between digital and
analogue levels to thekmanrocks. It's just not worth the time. Many
people have tried many times and I don't think he is capable of getting
it.

It´s just a waste of time trying to explain anything to people, who don´t
want any explanation, but prefer to make up own awkward "concepts" and
postulate those as the one and only and totally absolute truth.
The guy has been immune to everything besides his own ideas, still is and
probably will remain to be...

So, filter his nonsense and don´t reply to him. Everything else is a waste
of time.

[[email protected]]

Phil W: "The guy has been immune to everything besides his own ideas, still is and
probably will remain to be...

So, filter his nonsense and don�t reply to him. Everything else is a waste "

That image I posted was from SOUND ON SOUND magazine. So those meter equivalents are NOT my own ideas!

[geoff]

wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey:

No correlation my ASS:
http://www.soundonsound.com/uploads/...R%202013.jp g
From a soundonsound forum thread. Perhaps you should hang out there instead
of on a usenet group.

The correlation, generally, is that analog zero is the equivalent
of -18dBfs, but there are variations. Of COURSE there's a correlation -
how are you supposed to read, on a digital desk, the rms & peak of a track
recorded through an analog desk?!

And yes, anyone who thinks you can raise the rms level of a track
from -18dbfs to -8dbfs WITHOUT dynamics processing of some sort is on
DRUGS - unless the track already had a ridiculously low crest factor to
begin with and just needs to be raised in overall level.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Phil W: "The guy has been immune to everything besides his own ideas, still=
is and=20
probably will remain to be...=20

So, filter his nonsense and don=EF=BF=BDt reply to him. Everything else is =
a waste "

That image I posted was from SOUND ON SOUND magazine. So those meter equiv=
alents are NOT my own ideas!

They are arbitrary, though, and depend entirely on the playback system,
not the recording. What Sound on Sound was attempting to demonstrate was
the difference between peak and average levels, and really had nothing to
do with analogue levels. 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.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "but your brain is too damged"

Question 1. Are you a MD?

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 7/18/2013 12:08 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
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

Maybe you found Mike R's infamous "Oops Wrong" button.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[LESLIE WATTS]

I had a cd player in 1982, but I didn't own it.
It was a prototype of the Sony CDP-101. It had been loaned to us at Shure. I
was a development engineer there, and took the unit home for a while.

There were only 4 CDs.

I thought it sounded pretty good, even though I was a phono cartridge
designer. I was fresh out of engineering school so understood how digital
worked. Many did not.

I switched to cd several years later. (still play vinyl too).

Les
L M Watts Technology

[geoff]

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

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

I'm sure he will if you do similarly about your totally flawed concepts on
analogue v. digital levels, and max peak levels v. compression. And pretty
much everything else, it seems ...

geoff

[[email protected]]

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!

[polymod]

wrote in message
...
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!

If 6 were 9.

Poly

[John Williamson]

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!

These are guys that work with this stuff every day of their working
lives. They don't have much time to read stuff on the internet,
especially when it doesn't correspond with what they do day in, day out.

Just because it's on the web doesn't mean that it's right, and a *lot*
of incorrect stuff gets propogated by people that don't understand just
how wrong it is.

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson:

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

[[email protected]]

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

(I shudder at the thought..)

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

LESLIE WATTS wrote:

I had a cd player in 1982, but I didn't own it.
It was a prototype of the Sony CDP-101. It had been loaned to us at
Shure. I was a development engineer there, and took the unit home for
a while.

There were only 4 CDs.

I thought it sounded pretty good, even though I was a phono cartridge
designer. I was fresh out of engineering school so understood how
digital worked. Many did not.

I switched to cd several years later. (still play vinyl too).

You almost make the point I have been waiting for in this thread: one
doesn't "switch to cd", but supplements with it. And the "why" is invariably
"software only available in that format".

Les
L M Watts Technology

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/18/2013 5:51 PM, wrote:

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

No peaks above -10 dBFS. Make the RMS level (or crest factor, or
loudness, however you want to describe and annotate it) whatever you or
your customers want.



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