Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:15:30 PM UTC-5, Tom McCreadie wrote:
On 10 Dec 2014 wrote:

Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL

They exist, you will find one. I released a bunch of them. But they are
very much a drop in the bucket.
--scott


http://www.studio-nibble.com/cd/inde..._(release_list)

That list was mainly pop/rock music. I think you'll find a lot more lurking out
there in classical genre.
For instance, doing a quick dip into a pile of classical cd's before me that
were made between 1980 and 1990, I found this one at only my 6th try :-):

Musica Svecia MSCD 626 (1990): "Serenad, Midvinter, Chitra";composer Wilhelm
Stenhammar; performed by The Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra and Choir.
--
Tom McCreadie



Cool. I checked "Beethoven: Symphonies No. 5 & No. 7" Telarc CD-80163 (1988)
and Bach "Brandenburg" Concertos Philips 420 345-2

No on both of them in EAC, even though the Bach one was released on CD in West(!!!) Germany but recorded in the '70s. No year of CD release info is available anywhere for that one.
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

wrote:

Cool. I checked "Beethoven: Symphonies No. 5 & No. 7" Telarc CD-80163 (1988)
and Bach "Brandenburg" Concertos Philips 420 345-2

No on both of them in EAC, even though the Bach one was released on CD in West(!!!) Germany but recorded in the '70s. No year of CD release info is available anywhere for that one.


Renner was very much against emphasis as well, in part because he'd invested
highly into the Stockham system. This was a matter of serious debates back
in the eighties and you could hear people in the bars around the AES show
weighing the various advantages and disadvantages with Renner being a loud
voice.

Smaller labels that were doing live to 2-track stuff with the likes of the
SV-3700 were more likely to be using emphasis.

It was very much a creature of its time, and that time was a rather short
one considering the age of digital recording today.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Seems to be a list for everything nowadays... Couple things
I noticed about this list: #1. Most of the items on it were
made outside of the U.S. for distribution outside of the U.S.
Guess sound quality wasn't as much of an issue on early CDs
& players inside of the U.S. as it was in other countries.
#2. Of the 3 catalog #s I own that are on this list,
Exact Audio Copy returned a "no" in the pre-emphasis column.


Preemphasis applied or not and preemphasis flag set or not are two different
questions. Errors will have happened, it should have been compulsory or not
at all, letting it be optional was a concept that was remote from the real
world.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen




  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record


"Scott Dorsey" skrev i en meddelelse
...
wrote:


Smaller labels that were doing live to 2-track stuff with the likes of the
SV-3700 were more likely to be using emphasis.


My Sony ES2000 or so DAT offers it, it improves violins so I like it. It is
a setting and I come from a roadie background where we unsoldered switches
in microphones, so I don't like it. It was hideously costly and is
impressively well built, even second hand, and now I haven't even turned it
on for a couple of years ... guess it is the White Steamer of the household
by now ...

It was very much a creature of its time, and that time was a rather short
one considering the age of digital recording today.


--scott


Kind regards

Peter Larsen




  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

Peter Larsen wrote: "Preemphasis applied or not and preemphasis flag set or not are two different
questions."


That is essentially what I just said(apologies if it was vaguely worded). PE may have been applied, but a flag not set, in a lot of cases. That is why my software is returning a negative on potentially PE'd discs.


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Chuck wrote:
Some higher end CD players with Burr Brown DACs, in the mid 80s, had a
potentiometer that could be adjusted for minimum distortion on a low
level tone. Many times they were adjusted incorrectly out of the box.
As a courtesy to our customers, we would adjust the pots for minimum
distortion before the customer took the players home.


AARGH! LSB trims!
You can set 'em, but they don't stay that way....

Thank God for the Bitstream Revolution!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

In article ,
wrote:


Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL


They exist, you will find one. I released a bunch of them. But they are
very much a drop in the bucket.


http://www.studio-nibble.com/cd/inde..._(release_list)


I think this is a small fraction of the pressings out there, but even on
this short list there are a disturbing number of "missing PE flag" entries.

Although I am guessing "Brothers in Arms" is supposed to be that insanely
bright, because the LP was bright too.

Not very many dates either. I'd be very interested in seeing a plot of
year vs. number of emphasized releases.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Peter Larsen wrote:
Seems to be a list for everything nowadays... Couple things
I noticed about this list: #1. Most of the items on it were
made outside of the U.S. for distribution outside of the U.S.
Guess sound quality wasn't as much of an issue on early CDs
& players inside of the U.S. as it was in other countries.
#2. Of the 3 catalog #s I own that are on this list,
Exact Audio Copy returned a "no" in the pre-emphasis column.


Preemphasis applied or not and preemphasis flag set or not are two different
questions. Errors will have happened, it should have been compulsory or not
at all, letting it be optional was a concept that was remote from the real
world.


If it's applied and the bit isn't set, it's painfully obvious on an acoustic
recording. But in the days when people were sending 1610 tapes or DDP files
off to the pressing plant, it was often not possible for them to properly
audition the final product until it came back from the plant and sometimes
things went wrong with subcode bits.

If something went wrong like that, some labels would notice it in the spot
check before shipping and destroy all the bad pressings. Some labels would
never notice it at all. And some labels would notice it but ship it anyway.
I'm not mentioning any names here.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Peter Larsen wrote:
My Sony ES2000 or so DAT offers it, it improves violins so I like it. It is
a setting and I come from a roadie background where we unsoldered switches
in microphones, so I don't like it. It was hideously costly and is
impressively well built, even second hand, and now I haven't even turned it
on for a couple of years ... guess it is the White Steamer of the household
by now ...


It improves violins because it's eliminating a lot of the high frequency
hash from the ladder not being linear and the anti-aliasing filters still
letting a tiny bit of out-of-band stuff through.

The Tascam DA P-20 portadat made emphasis undefeatable, so there was no switch
to fail!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 7/12/2014 7:06 a.m., Roy W. Rising wrote:
Let's not forget the Cat. No. 43A controller that separately managed the
Type A's four bands of dynamic expans



Dunno about the 43A, but I have a coup[le of 361s with Cat22 cards in
about 5 feet behind my left shoulder !


geoff


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 7/12/2014 4:27 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:


Early converters had a lot of linearity problems, and the end result was
somewhat unpleasant high end. Remember this was the age of very long
ladder converters; if you recorded a 1kc tone at -60dBFS and played it
back, it sounded audibly buzzy (implying more than 2% distortion) on the
1610.

Pre-emphasis did a lot to reduce some of the high end distortion products
at the expense of a little dynamic range. The difference in sound on the
1610 (or even worse the SV3700) was quite audible.

Thank God those days are over.



Bop Till You Drop would have been even better without the q.noise - but
that was on the

recording side of things rather than playback ....

geoff

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2014 4:27 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:

Early converters had a lot of linearity problems, and the end result was
somewhat unpleasant high end. Remember this was the age of very long
ladder converters; if you recorded a 1kc tone at -60dBFS and played it
back, it sounded audibly buzzy (implying more than 2% distortion) on the
1610.

Pre-emphasis did a lot to reduce some of the high end distortion products
at the expense of a little dynamic range. The difference in sound on the
1610 (or even worse the SV3700) was quite audible.

Thank God those days are over.



Bop Till You Drop would have been even better without the q.noise - but
that was on the recording side of things rather than playback ....


That's the point of pre-emphasis... the higher frequency distortion
components are reduced compared to the signal because you have increased
the amount of high frequency signal before conversion and then decreased
it on playback.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
That's the point of pre-emphasis... the higher frequency distortion
components are reduced compared to the signal because you have increased
the amount of high frequency signal before conversion and then decreased
it on playback.
- show quoted text -"


I know you won't agree, but that matches precisely the description of what Dolby NR did for cassette tapes. Only for the cassettes it actually dynamically compressed the highs overemphasized upon transfer to tape.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
That's the point of pre-emphasis... the higher frequency distortion
components are reduced compared to the signal because you have increased
the amount of high frequency signal before conversion and then decreased
it on playback.

I know you won't agree, but that matches precisely the description of what Dolby NR did for cassette tapes. Only for the cassettes it actually dynamically compressed the highs overemphasized upon transfer to tape.


Compression and equalization are not the same thing.

The cassette recorder already DOES have 70mS or 100mS (depending on whether
you have selected normal or chrome tape) emphasis before Dolby is even turned
on. In the case of the cassette, it's done both to make the noise floor
somewhat flatter and to increase the amount of low end headroom, though.
Not for distortion reduction (although that can be a happy benefit).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom McCreadie Tom McCreadie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Scott Dorsey wrote:


The cassette recorder already DOES have 70mS or 100mS (depending on whether
you have selected normal or chrome tape) emphasis before Dolby is even turned
on.

Typo police here - 'mS' normally denotes milliseconds...instead of the required
microseconds.


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Typo police here -- 'mS' normally denotes milliseconds...
instead of the required microseconds.


Actually, it means millisiemens. Seconds isn't a proper name, and is
abbreviated as a lower-case letter: ms.


  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 22/12/2014 6:35 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
Typo police here -- 'mS' normally denotes milliseconds...
instead of the required microseconds.


Actually, it means millisiemens. Seconds isn't a proper name, and is
abbreviated as a lower-case letter: ms.




So " µs ".

geoff
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Compression and equalization are not the same thing. "

I'm aware of that. But it is in the B-NR, C-NR that compression is applied during playback to level the noise floor.

The digital pre-emph and Dolby are both using the PRINCIPLE of emph-de-emph to lower the level of something relative to something else.
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

Les Cargill:

Your's(the first reply to this thread) remains the best and most relevant answer.

But as opposed to zilch, I think engineering plays a significant role in conveying the meaning of a piece of music into a playable form.

And over engineering is an issue.
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Compression and equalization are not the same thing. "

I'm aware of that. But it is in the B-NR, C-NR that compression is applied during playback to level the noise floor.


Sort of, but not really. The Dolby B compression means that _loud_ signals
are reduced in level to tape without soft signals being reduced in level.
So you're gaining more headroom at high frequencies, without affecting the
noise level. (The end result being better S/N if you did it right.)

It's not like emphasis, which affects loud and soft signals equally.
--scott

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


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom McCreadie Tom McCreadie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Typo police here -- 'mS' normally denotes milliseconds...
instead of the required microseconds.


Actually, it means millisiemens. Seconds isn't a proper name, and is
abbreviated as a lower-case letter: ms.


Sorry, William, but you've got things confused here. In this present context, it
really is microseconds (µs).

The named unit "Siemens" does admittedly take the abbreviation "s", but that
pertains to measurement of electrical conductance. Scott was referring to the
IEC standardized Time Constants to define the (high frequency side) of the
record/playback equalization curve for cassette formulations, viz. 120µs (not
100µs) for Type I and 70µs for Type II.
--
Tom McCreadie
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom McCreadie Tom McCreadie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Tom McCreadie wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Typo police here -- 'mS' normally denotes milliseconds...
instead of the required microseconds.


Actually, it means millisiemens. Seconds isn't a proper name, and is
abbreviated as a lower-case letter: ms.


Sorry, William, but you've got things confused here. In this present context, it
really is microseconds (µs).

The named unit "Siemens" does admittedly take the abbreviation "s", but that
pertains to measurement of electrical conductance. Scott was referring to the
IEC standardized Time Constants to define the (high frequency side) of the
record/playback equalization curve for cassette formulations, viz. 120µs (not
100µs) for Type I and 70µs for Type II.


Oops, apologies, William, I realize only now that you were simply makng the case
for grammatical precision: 'mS' (with upper case 'S') when referring to Siemens
units, and 'ms' (with lower case 's ') for seconds. The last thing, of course,
that you needed from me was an 'Equalization 101' tutorial. As penance, I shall
offer up to the wide Internet community the correct spelling of "lose" and
''cardioid" :-)
My point in the first post was just the milli vs micro thing.
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the Powers that Are had stuck with mho.

Peace,
Paul

PS Not to mention the fact that undergraduates giggle when you say millisiemens".
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 12/22/2014 6:34 AM, PStamler wrote:
This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the Powers that Are had stuck with mho.


But isn't that transconductance?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 12/22/2014 12:29 AM, Tom McCreadie wrote:
Oops, apologies, William, I realize only now that you were simply makng the case
for grammatical precision: 'mS' (with upper case 'S') when referring to Siemens
units, and 'ms' (with lower case 's ') for seconds.


There's a standard, I think from IEEE, that's pretty straightforward. If
the unit is, or is derived from a person's name, then it's capitalized,
such as mA (milliamperes for Ampere) or uF (microfarads for Faraday). If
it's a physical unit, it's not capitalized, such as ms (milliseconds) or
mm (millimeters).

There's also a standard for capitalization of multipliers, too, but I
can't remember what it is, like kHz (which I use because it's easier to
read than KHz). km (kilometers) seems to be common, but so is KM, but
only on highway signs.

William the Gramarian will have an answer.

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


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

On Monday, December 22, 2014 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/21/2014 9:53 PM, theom wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Compression and equalization are not the same
thing. "

I'm aware of that. But it is in the B-NR, C-NR that compression is
applied during playback to level the noise floor.


Compression is applied during recording, not playback. Expansion is
applied during playback to un-do the compression.

De-emphasis (equalization) is applied during playback to undo the
emphasis applied during recording.


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


Thanks Mike R, excuse my dyslexia. So the expansion during Dolby NR in playback of cassette 'pushes down' the noise floor?
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/22/2014 6:34 AM, PStamler wrote:
This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the Powers that Are had stuck with mho.


But isn't that transconductance?


It could be any kind of conductance. But now we use siemens instead of mho
and hertz instead of cycles. And really, it doesn't make any difference
except for confusing people. It's bad enough that I have to explain MFD
instead of uF...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 12/22/2014 2:14 PM, wrote:
Thanks Mike R, excuse my dyslexia. So the expansion during Dolby NR
in playback of cassette 'pushes down' the noise floor?


No. Forget "noise floor" and think "tape hiss." They're not the same.
Dolby noise reduction does nothing for the noise coming in with the
source, it only affects the noise introduced by the recording process.

The incoming signal is emphasized (high frequency boost) and compressed.
The level coming out of the Dolby processor and actually going to the
tape head is raised to achieve the standard ("Dolby") level of magnetism
on tape. The playback is expanded to restore the dynamic range, the
de-emphasized to bring down the high frequency boost (with some hiss
along with it), and that's what you hear.

Some people liked to listen to an unprocessed Dolby B recording,
particularly in a car, because it's compressed and has some top end
added to it, both of which make it easier to hear the recorded content
in the presence of a high ambient noise level. Not accurately, of
course, but less gets covered up by road noise and screaming kids in the
back seat.

And some people say "Dolby dulls the high end" because they can hear the
de-emphasis taking place when they switch in in when the music is playing.

Dolby B isn't the greatest, but it does what it's supposed to do. Dolby
C does it a little better.

--
For a good time, visit
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

And some people say "Dolby dulls the high end" because they
can hear the de-emphasis taking place when they switch in in
when the music is playing.


I tested this over 30 years ago. Dolby B does dull the top end. dbx II
doesn't.



  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

William Sommerwerck: Consumer playback alignment at the factories was probably out by so much either way that dullness was the result.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 23/12/2014 2:01 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/22/2014 12:29 AM, Tom McCreadie wrote:
Oops, apologies, William, I realize only now that you were simply
makng the case
for grammatical precision: 'mS' (with upper case 'S') when referring
to Siemens
units, and 'ms' (with lower case 's ') for seconds.


There's a standard, I think from IEEE, that's pretty straightforward. If
the unit is, or is derived from a person's name, then it's capitalized,
such as mA (milliamperes for Ampere) or uF (microfarads for Faraday). If
it's a physical unit, it's not capitalized, such as ms (milliseconds) or
mm (millimeters).

There's also a standard for capitalization of multipliers, too, but I
can't remember what it is, like kHz (which I use because it's easier to
read than KHz). km (kilometers) seems to be common, but so is KM, but
only on highway signs.

William the Gramarian will have an answer.



Small for less than a single unit, capital for more than a single unit.
So 'mF 'is milli-Farads and 'MF' is mega-Farads.

geoff
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom McCreadie Tom McCreadie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

And some people say "Dolby dulls the high end" because they
can hear the de-emphasis taking place when they switch in in
when the music is playing.


I tested this over 30 years ago. Dolby B does dull the top end. dbx II
doesn't.


Back in the late '70's and early '80's, Nakamichi was under fire from many
people who'd observed that Dolby B cassettes made on a Nakamichi deck generally
sounded dull when played back on the decks of other manufacturers. An
explanation for this apparent dullness, gaining rapid traction in audio circles,
was that all Nak decks employed an equalization deviating from standard.

Nakamichi vigorously protested that 'bum rap', insisting that they - and not the
other manufacturers - were the guys who were diligently interpreting and
adhering to the standard. To underpin their case and re-educate the misguided
:-), they had their research dept. punp out some 'White Papers ' and Technical
Bulletins, for example:
- "Nakamichi Cassette Equalization: The Standard View"
- Nakamichi Technical Bulletin 2. "Playback Equalization"
--
Tom McCreadie
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

Tom McCreadie wrote:

Back in the late '70's and early '80's, Nakamichi was under fire from many
people who'd observed that Dolby B cassettes made on a Nakamichi deck generally
sounded dull when played back on the decks of other manufacturers. An
explanation for this apparent dullness, gaining rapid traction in audio circles,
was that all Nak decks employed an equalization deviating from standard.


These problems were due to the head configuration, not the equalization. It
was a matter of edge effect.

Nakamichi vigorously protested that 'bum rap', insisting that they - and not the
other manufacturers - were the guys who were diligently interpreting and
adhering to the standard. To underpin their case and re-educate the misguided
:-), they had their research dept. punp out some 'White Papers ' and Technical
Bulletins, for example:
- "Nakamichi Cassette Equalization: The Standard View"
- Nakamichi Technical Bulletin 2. "Playback Equalization"


Nak did in fact meet the head configuration and EQ standards better than anyone
else, but a standard that nobody follows is no standard.

The cassette world was just so horrible in so many ways....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating a Great Record

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Rivers
wrote:
On 12/22/2014 6:34 AM, PStamler wrote:
This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the
Powers that Are had stuck with mho.


But isn't that transconductance?


It could be any kind of conductance. But now we use siemens instead
of mho
and hertz instead of cycles. And really, it doesn't make any
difference
except for confusing people. It's bad enough that I have to explain
MFD
instead of uF...
--scott


Sloppy use of long-obsolete terminology is probably more confusing
than using hertz, which shouldn't be confusing to any professional or
academic or technician.




  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creating aGreat Record

Yeah, but using Hz won't get you very far if you're talking about conductance, which is what Siemens is the unit for.

Peace,
Paul

PS Another annoyance: what's the plural of Siemens? Siemenses? Siemensen?
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 23/12/2014 2:24 p.m., PStamler wrote:
Yeah, but using Hz won't get you very far if you're talking about conductance, which is what Siemens is the unit for.

Peace,
Paul

PS Another annoyance: what's the plural of Siemens? Siemenses? Siemensen?



Dunno, but 'semen' is inherently plural ;-)

geoff

PS Common usage would seem to support 'Siemens' being used for both the
singular and plural.
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) inCreating a Great Record

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Tom McCreadie wrote:

Back in the late '70's and early '80's, Nakamichi was under fire from many
people who'd observed that Dolby B cassettes made on a Nakamichi deck generally
sounded dull when played back on the decks of other manufacturers. An
explanation for this apparent dullness, gaining rapid traction in audio circles,
was that all Nak decks employed an equalization deviating from standard.


These problems were due to the head configuration, not the equalization. It
was a matter of edge effect.

Nakamichi vigorously protested that 'bum rap', insisting that they - and not the
other manufacturers - were the guys who were diligently interpreting and
adhering to the standard. To underpin their case and re-educate the misguided
:-), they had their research dept. punp out some 'White Papers ' and Technical
Bulletins, for example:
- "Nakamichi Cassette Equalization: The Standard View"
- Nakamichi Technical Bulletin 2. "Playback Equalization"


Nak did in fact meet the head configuration and EQ standards better than anyone
else, but a standard that nobody follows is no standard.

The cassette world was just so horrible in so many ways....
--scott


It was either use that or go without. Not so horrible in the final
analysis. And it all got a lot better.

--
Les Cargill
  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 23/12/2014 4:39 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

And some people say "Dolby dulls the high end" because they
can hear the de-emphasis taking place when they switch in in
when the music is playing.


I tested this over 30 years ago. Dolby B does dull the top end. dbx II
doesn't.



Simply proves the tape deck you "tested" had the usual Dolby
misalignment problems. DBX of course suffered more from the noise
pumping problems that Dolby was designed to reduce. Both were simply
partial attempts to reduce the inherent problems of analog tape.
Thankfully something we can now forget, except for those who prefer
nostalgia to music.

Trevor.

  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Role of Production(Recording, Mixing, & Mastering) in Creatinga Great Record

On 23/12/2014 1:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's bad enough that I have to explain MFD
instead of uF...


Why would you have to explain Metro Fire Department Vs micro Farad?

Trevor.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
music production, audio production, sequencing, mixing, beat,DJ, mixing consoles, Steinberg, Sony, virtual instruments VSTi and samplelibraries, groove, synth, bass, strings, guitar, piano, hip-hop ( hiphop), RnB, trance, jazz Martin Haverland Pro Audio 0 April 19th 10 05:29 PM
Recording, Mixing or Mastering Reference Books & Reviews? EchoClerk Pro Audio 5 February 28th 09 04:49 PM
Creating Dimension in Mixing [email protected] Pro Audio 2 May 6th 06 11:28 PM
RAM's role in recording? gary Pro Audio 0 September 30th 04 03:03 AM
Role Of The Mixing Desk Customer of Plusnet Pro Audio 23 October 7th 03 02:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"