Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "flipper" wrote in message Out of curiosity, got any, say circa 1985, CDs? Last night, after sauna, I was looking at some British remastered pop CD's from that era. Jethro Tull in particular. They all seemed average around -18dBFS. In contrast, much current pop material peaks at, or close to, clipping. Hang on. How do you know that Jethro Tull Cds didn't peak at close to clipping ? They're supposed to. That's what good mastering is all about. The difference is that modern production styles for 'pop' totally smashes the dynamic range to oblivion. In fact 'modern' CDs may have 'better' headroom than old ones. A LOT of old CDs included 'digital clips'. Graham |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently stable An absence of NFB **DOES NOT** make any ampliifer 'inherently stable'. Such an idea is pure horse manure. Graham |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... What the hell is the point of monitoring 'perceived loudness'. Have these people not got EARS to do that ? Measureing 'loudness' with a meter makesa bout as much sense as giving a fish a bicycle and has always struck me as being about the lamest excuse you could imagine for using a backward, technically flawed method !´ It gives a post-production engineer, with the skill to interpret what he sees, a better indication of what the compressor is doing to the overal dynamic that any PPM ever could. But digital metering is used overall, and normally (at least on all the CD mastering sessions I have attended) the envelope is examined at sample level. The metering needs to tell you something useful such as whether you're clipping and VUs most certainly haven't a hope in hell of doing that. No-one claimed it did. He expressed clearly how and why he found it useful. Nor do PPMs exactly either. They're based on metering what is believed not to sound likes it's clipping, and a PPM won't register momentary clips either. Peaking at -8dBFS there won't be any clipping:-) To avoid 'digital clips' it's necessary to use a 'digital meter' that registers the exact amplitude of every sample. Agreed. But take a look at much of the current chart material. You will find there is often no attempt at all to "avoid digital clips" This is not due to oversight or incompetence but done to meet the wishes of the client, whose pop listeners want CDs to be as loud as possible. Best regards Iain |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "flipper" wrote Out of curiosity, got any, say circa 1985, CDs? Last night, after sauna, I was looking at some British remastered pop CD's from that era. Jethro Tull in particular. They all seemed average around -18dBFS. In contrast, much current pop material peaks at, or close to, clipping. Yes, that's 'modern' music production for you. Go to rec.audio.pro for a discussion of it every week or two. I don't need to go anywhere Graham. I am involved in mastering (though not usually pop material) on almost a daily basis:-) Iain |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:58:05 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
Iain Churches wrote: A Japanese company recently sent me their catalogue of "superior non.magnetic resistors" Somewhat moot since I have yet to find any magnetic resistors. And even if they were magnetic it wouldn't matter tuppence. So long as you get the polarity correct. ;-) -- Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!) Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote What the hell is the point of monitoring 'perceived loudness'. Have these people not got EARS to do that ? Measureing 'loudness' with a meter makesa bout as much sense as giving a fish a bicycle and has always struck me as being about the lamest excuse you could imagine for using a backward, technically flawed method !´ It gives a post-production engineer, with the skill to interpret what he sees, a better indication of what the compressor is doing to the overal dynamic that any PPM ever could. Don't be ridiculous ! Compressors have GAIN REDUCTION METERS. That's what you monitor, not damn stupid VU meters. Sometimes you say things that make me wonder if you ever really worked in sound engineering. Graham |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Nor do PPMs catch peaks exactly either. They're based on metering that is believed not to sound likes it's clipping, and a PPM won't register momentary clips either. Peaking at -8dBFS there won't be any clipping:-) How do you KNOW you're peaking at -8dBFS with a PPM ? I suspect you're not aware how inaccurate (slow reading) they can be. Graham |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote To avoid 'digital clips' it's necessary to use a 'digital meter' that registers the exact amplitude of every sample. Agreed. But take a look at much of the current chart material. You will find there is often no attempt at all to "avoid digital clips" How do you KNOW ? Chances are that they're using far more accurate metering than you are. DAWs are good at that. Graham |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: pop listeners want CDs to be as loud as possible. Clipping, per se, doesn't make it LOUD. Dynamic range control does that. You're confusing 2 quite different concepts. Graham |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "flipper" wrote Out of curiosity, got any, say circa 1985, CDs? Last night, after sauna, I was looking at some British remastered pop CD's from that era. Jethro Tull in particular. They all seemed average around -18dBFS. In contrast, much current pop material peaks at, or close to, clipping. Yes, that's 'modern' music production for you. Go to rec.audio.pro for a discussion of it every week or two. I don't need to go anywhere Graham. I am involved in mastering (though not usually pop material) on almost a daily basis:-) I believe it would be to your advantage to open your mind to other peoples' views on the matter too. You might get a more accurate idea of what's going on. It seems highly flawed to me at present judging by the basis of what you've written here. Graham |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Iain Churches wrote: A Japanese company recently sent me their catalogue of "superior non.magnetic resistors" Somewhat moot since I have yet to find any magnetic resistors. And even if they were magnetic it wouldn't matter tuppence. Tinned steel leads? |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"flipper" wrote in message
But rather than repeat it, how about some professional mastering companies? http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html "In studios with both types of metering present, a point on the negative dBFS scale would be correlated with a point on the dBVU scale. Typically this is something like -20 dBFS = 0 dBVU, so that "0 dB" on a VU meter would leave approximately 20dB of headroom for signal peaks on the dBFS scale." What you don't seem to know is that: (1) Analog meters don't have instant response and simply average out short impulses. (2) A good pro analog tape machine would often not sound too bad if you let the peaks go up into the +6 to +10 range. A lot of pro machines were set up for say 1% or less THD at 400 Hz at 0 dB, and 3% at maybe +6. Good analog tape machines never really clip at reasonable levels, the tape just sort of mooshes and sort of flattens out and does something like compression. http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm "CDs produced in 1985 had an average (RMS) level of -18dB." OK flipper now your problem is clear - you can't tell the diference between peak and average levels. The usual peak-to average or crest factor of uncompressed music is never less than about 8 dB, and can easily be in the 15-20 dB range. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Eeyore" wrote in message ... There are no commercial recordings existing that have a dynamic of even 80dB, So far so good. But I've got at least one or two that come close. Sorry. Close is not good enough. Wow, Iain who nominated you for a position as a god? ;-) The statement statement stands, and comes from an article published by the BPI. It even includes info from Russian labels such as Origen. If you could read and comprehend Iain, I sort of agreed with that. Both at Decca and RCA the two companies of which I have considerable knowledge, production discs were mastered to peak at approx 10dB above ref. of -18dBFS. You can work out the rest, Arny. I'll stick by my 12 years of observations related to 100s of commercial CDs. I have before me a set of digital files for the Columbia/Walter set of Beethoven Symphonies. If I post the disc stock number and time offset where there is a sample FS-8 dB, what amount of money will you pay me for my time to find it, Iain? Bidding starts at $50 of good US devalued cash. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. The output of the CD recorder is routed via AES/EBU to the LO1 position and meters on the Lewo console. So you sit and watch the meters for the duration of the recording? What if you blink your eyes? :-))) The meter has a peak level marker, which stays in place until you cancel it, plus the possibility to assign 98 other levels into memory. It corresponds exactly with the level indicated by the HHB CD recorder. Got one of those, and no way would I trust the information about levels that I get from it for a question such as the one at hand. I knew you had. That's why I mentioned it. What you don't have is the Lewo post-production desk:-) The Lewo desk can only corrupt the results. I go direct digital with no gain controls in the signal path. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Iain Churches wrote: But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently stable An absence of NFB **DOES NOT** make any ampliifer 'inherently stable'. Such an idea is pure horse manure. Yep, in fact NFB that is truely NFB never causes instability. Instability only comes when a loop that is NFB in the mid band becomes positive feedback due to phase shift, usually at the frequency extremes. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Eeyore" wrote in message Iain Churches wrote: But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently stable An absence of NFB **DOES NOT** make any ampliifer 'inherently stable'. Such an idea is pure horse manure. Yep, in fact NFB that is truely NFB never causes instability. Instability only comes when a loop that is NFB in the mid band becomes positive feedback due to phase shift, usually at the frequency extremes. Good. Things are getting better round here. Arny has made a statement on topic:-) The FB that may be negative at say 1kHz may well swing through positive at say 120kHz. A tube amp without feedback is, by definition, not prone to such problems. Iain |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
-- Iain Aural perception is a skill that requires study and careful development over along period of time. Few have it as a natural gift. "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. The output of the CD recorder is routed via AES/EBU to the LO1 position and meters on the Lewo console. So you sit and watch the meters for the duration of the recording? What if you blink your eyes? :-))) The meter has a peak level marker, which stays in place until you cancel it, plus the possibility to assign 98 other levels into memory. It corresponds exactly with the level indicated by the HHB CD recorder. Got one of those, and no way would I trust the information about levels that I get from it for a question such as the one at hand. I knew you had. That's why I mentioned it. What you don't have is the Lewo post-production desk:-) The Lewo desk can only corrupt the results. I go direct digital with no gain controls in the signal path. Look at the routing schematic. The AES/EBU returns are direct, and have no controls of any kind in the signal path. There is no corruption. Once again, Arny, you remain without cigar:-) Iain |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Eeyore" wrote in message ... There are no commercial recordings existing that have a dynamic of even 80dB, So far so good. But I've got at least one or two that come close. Sorry. Close is not good enough. Wow, Iain who nominated you for a position as a god? ;-) The MTA collected data makes a statement. No god has anything to say in the matter. 80dB is 80dB however much you would wish it to be otherwise. The statement statement stands, and comes from an article published by the BPI. It even includes info from Russian labels such as Origen. If you could read and comprehend Iain, I sort of agreed with that. Please look at the article. I have before me a set of digital files for the Columbia/Walter set of Beethoven Symphonies. If I post the disc stock number and time offset where there is a sample FS-8 dB, what amount of money will you pay me for my time to find it, Iain? Bidding starts at $50 of good US devalued cash. You seem to be short of something useful to do. Come and mark up a Mahler full-score for me:-) As I posted earlier. (One of the paragraphs you chose to cut) There seems be be no world's eye view of mastering levels. There are non-conformists in every walk of life, not just religion. Iain |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Nor do PPMs catch peaks exactly either. They're based on metering that is believed not to sound likes it's clipping, and a PPM won't register momentary clips either. Peaking at -8dBFS there won't be any clipping:-) How do you KNOW you're peaking at -8dBFS with a PPM ? One can check this accurately by looking at the envelope as we have already discussed. The mixer's digital meters are sufficiently accurate for mastering in particular when the test tones on the pre-production master has be set up to -18dB with peaking level as indicated -8dBFS. This is all pretty routine in mastering. Iain |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote What the hell is the point of monitoring 'perceived loudness'. Have these people not got EARS to do that ? Measureing 'loudness' with a meter makesa bout as much sense as giving a fish a bicycle and has always struck me as being about the lamest excuse you could imagine for using a backward, technically flawed method !´ It gives a post-production engineer, with the skill to interpret what he sees, a better indication of what the compressor is doing to the overal dynamic that any PPM ever could. Don't be ridiculous ! Compressors have GAIN REDUCTION METERS. That's what you monitor, not damn stupid VU meters. Indeed they do. (Don't shout - this is an audio group) The point was that he used the VU to show what he called the increase in apparent loudness of the signal. This is probably easier for the client to understand than a gain reduction meter. Iain |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently stable An absence of NFB **DOES NOT** make any ampliifer 'inherently stable'. Such an idea is pure horse manure. But trying to introduce more than say 16dB of NFB in a PP tube amp introduced stability problems which few homebrew builders have either the skill or equipment to solve. Compared with this, SET is pretty amicable. That was my point. Iain |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "flipper" wrote Out of curiosity, got any, say circa 1985, CDs? Last night, after sauna, I was looking at some British remastered pop CD's from that era. Jethro Tull in particular. They all seemed average around -18dBFS. In contrast, much current pop material peaks at, or close to, clipping. Yes, that's 'modern' music production for you. Go to rec.audio.pro for a discussion of it every week or two. I don't need to go anywhere Graham. I am involved in mastering (though not usually pop material) on almost a daily basis:-) I believe it would be to your advantage to open your mind to other peoples' views on the matter too. You might get a more accurate idea of what's going on. It seems highly flawed to me at present judging by the basis of what you've written here. I have a better idea of what is going on that most. It was I who drew the attention to people on UKRA for instance as to what was current practice. Most were amazed. Prof Jim L decided to look into the matter, and based, on the info I had given him, thought it important enough to write two articles for a UK mag. Judging by the aparent lack of feedback, it seems as though the public were not too interested. In most cases, other people's views (to which you think one should open one's mind:-) are not very helpful. Discussion with the end user is pretty depressing. Most people neither notice nor care that pop CDs are heavily compressed and sometimes clipped. Ask them, as I have done, and they will tell you "Sounds fine to me. I listen mainly in the car". Luckily the genre of music in which I work, baroque (early/pre classical orchestral music) and jazz are not affected by this "louder is better" syndrome. I have spoken with record company representatives and producers who truly believe that they are giving the public what they (think they) want. The record companies get very few complaints indeed. Does your expertise include CD mastering, Graham? Do you have some constructive views on the subject? If so, it would be of great interest to hear them Best regards Iain |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Eeyore" wrote in message Iain Churches wrote: But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently stable An absence of NFB **DOES NOT** make any ampliifer 'inherently stable'. Such an idea is pure horse manure. Right. Now if Iain said: "But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently resistant to instability due to NFB", he would have an obvious truism, but at least he would be right. Obviously, an amp can become unstable for reasons other thanpoor design of the NFB. Yep, in fact NFB that is truely NFB never causes instability. Instability only comes when a loop that is NFB in the mid band becomes positive feedback due to phase shift, usually at the frequency extremes. Good. Things are getting better round here. Arny has made a statement on topic:-) The FB that may be negative at say 1kHz may well swing through positive at say 120kHz. A tube amp without feedback is, by definition, not prone to such problems. Similar symptom, different cause. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi "Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: But then SET amps traditionally have little or no NFB and so are inherently stable An absence of NFB **DOES NOT** make any ampliifer 'inherently stable'. Such an idea is pure horse manure. But trying to introduce more than say 16dB of NFB in a PP tube amp introduced stability problems which few homebrew builders have either the skill or equipment to solve. Compared with this, SET is pretty amicable. That was my point. Yes, getting rid of NFB dumbs down amplifier design to the point where naive dilettantes might be more likely to construct an amplifier that does not summarily incinerate itself when first turned on. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. The output of the CD recorder is routed via AES/EBU to the LO1 position and meters on the Lewo console. So you sit and watch the meters for the duration of the recording? What if you blink your eyes? :-))) The meter has a peak level marker, which stays in place until you cancel it, plus the possibility to assign 98 other levels into memory. It corresponds exactly with the level indicated by the HHB CD recorder. Got one of those, and no way would I trust the information about levels that I get from it for a question such as the one at hand. I knew you had. That's why I mentioned it. What you don't have is the Lewo post-production desk:-) Biological ears vs. a VU meter...hmmm. I trust my ears, but not always. Point is that sound perception can change and is not always reliable, even for those with trained "golden ears." You see, at Iain's work place, the engineer came in one day with a bad head cold. They couldn't halt production because his head was all stuffed up so they relied on the VU meter. Plausible? west Iain |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message i.fi "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi "Eeyore" wrote in message ... There are no commercial recordings existing that have a dynamic of even 80dB, So far so good. But I've got at least one or two that come close. Sorry. Close is not good enough. Wow, Iain who nominated you for a position as a god? ;-) The MTA collected data makes a statement. No god has anything to say in the matter. 80dB is 80dB however much you would wish it to be otherwise. The statement statement stands, and comes from an article published by the BPI. It even includes info from Russian labels such as Origen. If you could read and comprehend Iain, I sort of agreed with that. Please look at the article. I have before me a set of digital files for the Columbia/Walter set of Beethoven Symphonies. If I post the disc stock number and time offset where there is a sample FS-8 dB, what amount of money will you pay me for my time to find it, Iain? Bidding starts at $50 of good US devalued cash. You seem to be short of something useful to do. Come and mark up a Mahler full-score for me:-) As long as it's not his 1st. west As I posted earlier. (One of the paragraphs you chose to cut) There seems be be no world's eye view of mastering levels. There are non-conformists in every walk of life, not just religion. Iain |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: A Japanese company recently sent me their catalogue of "superior non.magnetic resistors" Somewhat moot since I have yet to find any magnetic resistors. And even if they were magnetic it wouldn't matter tuppence. Tinned steel leads? You sem to see those more on small signal diodes than resistors IME. Still doesn't matter of course. Graham |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: A tube amp without feedback is, by definition, not prone to such problems. 'Motorboating' ? Why do tubes sometimes need grid stopper Rs ? It has NOTHING to do with NFB ! Graham |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote: Nor do PPMs catch peaks exactly either. They're based on metering that is believed not to sound likes it's clipping, and a PPM won't register momentary clips either. Peaking at -8dBFS there won't be any clipping:-) How do you KNOW you're peaking at -8dBFS with a PPM ? One can check this accurately by looking at the envelope as we have already discussed. And the ONLY way to do that meaningfully is with a wave editor. The mixer's digital meters are sufficiently accurate for mastering in particular when the test tones on the pre-production master has be set up to -18dB with peaking level as indicated -8dBFS. This is all pretty routine in mastering. Define 'adequately accurate' please. You accept they may be flawed ? Graham |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote What the hell is the point of monitoring 'perceived loudness'. Have these people not got EARS to do that ? Measureing 'loudness' with a meter makes about as much sense as giving a fish a bicycle and has always struck me as being about the lamest excuse you could imagine for using a backward, technically flawed method !´ It gives a post-production engineer, with the skill to interpret what he sees, a better indication of what the compressor is doing to the overal dynamic that any PPM ever could. Don't be ridiculous ! Compressors have GAIN REDUCTION METERS. That's what you monitor, not damn stupid VU meters. Indeed they do. (Don't shout - this is an audio group) The point was that he used the VU to show what he called the increase in apparent loudness of the signal. This is probably easier for the client to understand than a gain reduction meter. I think it's completely half-assed myself. In a mix you won't see anything of value about the level of compression being applied at all. Graham |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
Arny Krueger wrote: ..... getting rid of NFB dumbs down amplifier design to the point where naive dilettantes might be more likely to construct an amplifier that does not summarily incinerate itself when first turned on. There is certainly some truth in that. ;~) Achieving the same result with semiconductors requires rather more skill. Graham |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
flipper wrote: "As I said, if the CD is produced in accordance with EBU recommendations, What the **** has the EBU ( a radio and TV based organisation) got to do with MUSIC PRODUCTION ! as well as the 'original intent' of the CD standard, There's NO 'intent' in the Red Book standard other than to specify aspects of how data is presented on an Audio CD. It says NOTHING about dynamic range and it would be MAD if it did. nominal program level (not peaks) would normally be around 18dB below the player's rated 'output voltage', which is specified at 0dBfs (maximum output)." PURE NONSENSE ! ***** The ratio of peak level to average level is determined by the musical 'style' of the production and ONLY that. ***** Graham |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"West" wrote in message news:mB7mj.795$hM4.92@trnddc07... "Iain Churches" wrote in message ti.fi... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. The output of the CD recorder is routed via AES/EBU to the LO1 position and meters on the Lewo console. So you sit and watch the meters for the duration of the recording? What if you blink your eyes? :-))) The meter has a peak level marker, which stays in place until you cancel it, plus the possibility to assign 98 other levels into memory. It corresponds exactly with the level indicated by the HHB CD recorder. Got one of those, and no way would I trust the information about levels that I get from it for a question such as the one at hand. I knew you had. That's why I mentioned it. What you don't have is the Lewo post-production desk:-) Biological ears vs. a VU meter...hmmm. I trust my ears, but not always. Point is that sound perception can change and is not always reliable, even for those with trained "golden ears." You see, at Iain's work place, the engineer came in one day with a bad head cold. They couldn't halt production because his head was all stuffed up so they relied on the VU meter. Plausible? No. Just sad and rather foolish. Get a grip West. In cases where CDs are mastered close to 0dBFS (there is no headroom whatsoever) the mastering engineer needs a lot more than just his ears. (Just as a pilot of even the smallest plane needs more than just his eyes.) He needs to be able to see and measure accurately the material which is being transferred. That's why, when the CD is completed, the envelope is examined visually at sample level. Try doing that by ear, golden or not:-) Cordially Iain |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"West" wrote in message news:XD7mj.796$hM4.780@trnddc07... "Iain Churches" wrote in message You seem to be short of something useful to do. Come and mark up a Mahler full-score for me:-) As long as it's not his 1st. west Is the 1st not to your liking West?. The listener needs to put a lot in to get anything out. Mahler is not for the faint-hearted. I am currently interested in Mahler 4 (G major) |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:43:57 +0200, "Iain Churches" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html "In studios with both types of metering present, a point on the negative dBFS scale would be correlated with a point on the dBVU scale. Typically this is something like -20 dBFS = 0 dBVU, so that "0 dB" on a VU meter would leave approximately 20dB of headroom for signal peaks on the dBFS scale." Hi Flipper. Interesting you should mention the VU. The mastering facility where I work often has digital PPMs, a pair of analogue PPMs and VUs also. The resident engineer told me that he finds the VUs extremely useful for their indication of a close approximation of the "perceived loudness" with compressed material. Makes sense since that was it's purpose: "Volume Unit" meter. It is interesting to note the re-appearance of VUs added to the existing meter overbridge, particularly in mastering suites. This is something considered important in the domain of popular "louder is better" CD mastering. Sad, isn't it? Makes one wonder a bit about the tem 'artist'. The artist is not to blame. What the current situation shows is the total apathy of the public to a poor sounding product which has been tailored to what seems to be their needs. This is even more frustrating because the pre-production master is probably as clean as a whistle:-( I can't help but think of Lena Lamont, in Singing in the Rain, who thinks the totally screwed up sound is terrific because it was "good and loud." That is precisely the siatuation today. People like those on this group, who seek and appreciate high quality audio are sadly just a very small majority. Yeah. The arguments about people listening mostly in cars and iPODs is interesting ´ It's a bit more than an argument, it is the result of a study in which fairly large sections of the public were interviewed both in the EU and the States. but I'd much rather have a compressor. or 'automatic level control', in the playback unit that have it permanently mangled on the source material. Yes indeed. That's an option that has been mentioned by many, who have for example been asking for clean download ".wav" files instead of, or in addition to the compressed .mp3s which are currently available. The same could apply to CD. "Hot or normal , sir?" Sounds like a kebab bar, doesn't it? :-)) Reminds me of the old tape recorder days and the one and only 'joke' a fellah I knew back then came up with. Someone had a tape recorder with "ARC" plastered in it and while he knew "ALC" was "Automatic Level Control" he wondered what the heck "ARC" stood for. And our 'never invented a joke before' friend retorted, in his best Japenglish impersonation, "Autwromatwric wRevel Contwrol." :-) Iain |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote What the hell is the point of monitoring 'perceived loudness'. Have these people not got EARS to do that ? Measureing 'loudness' with a meter makes about as much sense as giving a fish a bicycle and has always struck me as being about the lamest excuse you could imagine for using a backward, technically flawed method !´ It gives a post-production engineer, with the skill to interpret what he sees, a better indication of what the compressor is doing to the overal dynamic that any PPM ever could. Don't be ridiculous ! Compressors have GAIN REDUCTION METERS. That's what you monitor, not damn stupid VU meters. Indeed they do. (Don't shout - this is an audio group) The point was that he used the VU to show what he called the increase in apparent loudness of the signal. This is probably easier for the client to understand than a gain reduction meter. I think it's completely half-assed myself. In a mix you won't see anything of value about the level of compression being applied at all. It is not difficult to understand why he would prefer to show his clients how, by adding compression, the "perceived overall listening level" (as he calls it) rises, as shown on the VU, rather than point out the "gain reduction" as indicated by the compressor. When one is working with a pop client whose objective is to produce a CD as loud and as punchy as it can possibly be, the term "gain reduction" is not one that would be used if the matter can be illustrated in another way. Simple psychology, Graham. This is the classical case of comparison of a glass half full with one that is half empty. Iain |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"flipper" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:55:22 +0200, "Iain Churches" wrote: "flipper" wrote in message . .. Out of curiosity, got any, say circa 1985, CDs? Last night, after sauna, I was looking at some British remastered pop CD's from that era. Jethro Tull in particular. Good stuff. I've always loved the emotion put into the flute in Bouree on the Stand Up album, although, their most famous is probably Aqualung. An amazing band. Which one were you looking at? I have quite a lot of early Tull material on vinyl and the remakes on CD. The comparisons are interesting. I listened to: "Stand Up" (published 1970) "Awakening" (1971) "Living In the Past" (1972) "Passion Play" (1973) "Broadsword" (1979?) These were among the first titles to be resissued on CD They all seemed average around -18dBFS. In contrast, much current pop material peaks at, or close to, clipping. Much of the Jethro Tull material has been remastered and re-issued more that once. There are considerable diffferences in, for example, the versions of "Thick As a Brick" 1979 (vinyl) and the 1988 and 1997 CD versions. Likewise, "Broadsword" vinyl and first CD sound very similar indeed, the later (2005) remastering is quite different. (I avoid the use of the terms "worse" or better") Yeah. And, frankly, I can't figure out what the heck Arny and Eeyore think they're 'arguing' about. Perhaps Graham does not actually know, although from habit he speak always with considerable implied authority. And Arny? well dear old Arny will argue black is white - that's his style:-) Regards to all Iain |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: "As I said, if the CD is produced in accordance with EBU recommendations, What the **** has the EBU ( a radio and TV based organisation) got to do with MUSIC PRODUCTION ! Your dishonest snipping of things I've snipped your previous rambling nonsense only. to hell and back notwithstanding, the EBU is but one of over a dozen references I've given, all saying the same thing. Irrelevant. You talk nothing but pure and complete horse manure. The music production business doen't give a fig what the damn self-important EBU says. Graham |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote To avoid 'digital clips' it's necessary to use a 'digital meter' that registers the exact amplitude of every sample. Agreed. But take a look at much of the current chart material. You will find there is often no attempt at all to "avoid digital clips" How do you KNOW ? I have looked at a lot of recorded material, and also sometimes had the chance to compare the CD with the pre-production master. Chances are that they're using far more accurate metering than you are. DAWs are good at that. The team with which I am associated owns a large ProTools DAW, and a Studer digital editing workstation. Iain |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
No Interconnect is the Best
flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: ***** The ratio of peak level to average level is determined by the musical 'style' of the production and ONLY that. ***** I am well aware that people can create whatever crap they feel like and anyone with a better than room temperature I.Q. knows that from the fact I've said it more than once. Are you really SO STUPID as to deny the fact I posted above ? You really are one ignorant ****. You know NOTHING of value and just love posting irrelevant rubbish presumably to bolster your own moronic idea of 'self-importance'. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Optical interconnect | Pro Audio | |||
Interconnect "Directionality" | High End Audio | |||
DIY Interconnect questions | Tech | |||
SymbiLink Interconnect | Car Audio | |||
FS: XLO LIMITED 2m Interconnect | Marketplace |