Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm



=\ means 'not equal to'
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

In article ,
wrote:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm




=\ means 'not equal to'


Seems to be a bit of a mixture. In UK broadcasting the PPM was/is the
normal metering system - not a VU. With PPM4 the reading for a 1v peak to
peak signal. Peak is 8 dB above that, and 10dB left as headroom. Hence -18
dBFS being the reading to line up to on a digital recorder. Known as EBU
spec. VU meters usually read about -4 on this reference signal. But I've
no real experience of VU meters.

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

.. With PPM4 the reading for a 1v peak to
peak signal.


NITPICK
The PPM4 signal is defined as 1mW into 600 ohms, which is equivalent to
a sinewave of 0.7746v rms or 1.0955 v peak or 2.1909v p/p. (truncation
errors caused the anomalies in the last digit)
/NITPICK


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

In article .invalid,
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


.. With PPM4 the reading for a 1v peak to
peak signal.


NITPICK
The PPM4 signal is defined as 1mW into 600 ohms, which is equivalent to
a sinewave of 0.7746v rms or 1.0955 v peak or 2.1909v p/p. (truncation
errors caused the anomalies in the last digit)
/NITPICK



You're absolutely right. Got my peaks mixed up. Not a good idea in this
game. ;-)

Don't worry about the odd decimal point. Narrower than the needle width
anyway. ;-)

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article .invalid,
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


.. With PPM4 the reading for a 1v peak to
peak signal.


NITPICK
The PPM4 signal is defined as 1mW into 600 ohms, which is equivalent to
a sinewave of 0.7746v rms or 1.0955 v peak or 2.1909v p/p. (truncation
errors caused the anomalies in the last digit)
/NITPICK



You're absolutely right. Got my peaks mixed up. Not a good idea in this
game. ;-)

Don't worry about the odd decimal point. Narrower than the needle width
anyway. ;-)


Have you noticed that the needles of the original PPMs were flatways-on
to the scale?

Presumably this was to reduce air loading and to give the needle more
rigidity in the plane of rotation so that it didn't bend when kicking up
sharply.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

In article d.invalid,
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
You're absolutely right. Got my peaks mixed up. Not a good idea in this
game. ;-)

Don't worry about the odd decimal point. Narrower than the needle width
anyway. ;-)


Have you noticed that the needles of the original PPMs were flatways-on
to the scale?


How original are you going? Back to the round right hand zero valve
designs? I've not got one of them handy. The Ernest Turner stereo ones
have IIRC a V shaped pressing - presumably for maximum rigidity and
minimum mass.

Presumably this was to reduce air loading and to give the needle more
rigidity in the plane of rotation so that it didn't bend when kicking up
sharply.


Or simply to make it more visible at a distance?

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

gibbering moron @gmail.com wrote in message
...
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm
=\ means 'not equal to'


Kman means '****ing moron'. Back again, to ride your only hobby horse
(a corpse you beat to death long ago) and make a huge display of what
a ****ing asshole you are. Why do you persist in crapping all over
this newsgroup with your cretinous idiocy? You can''t even comprehend
the article. Don't tell anyone what to "take up" with anyone else.

Everyone knows you're a brain damaged ****-stain; you don't have to
keep coming here to prove it over and over again.


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:


On 9/12/2014 9:48 PM, wrote:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm

Why must I leave this wonderful newsgroup to read an article on a web
page just to find out what your question or comment is about?

Do you have a question? If so, here's the answer:

With digital recording, you, and nobody else (unless there's no knob)
decides how much headroom you want. You make that headroom by adjusting
the input gain of the A/D converter device so that with your nominal
analog level going in (say +4 dBu), the meter reads downscale by the
number of dB of headroom that you want (say -20).

Two things:

1. If there's no input level control, you're stuck with whatever you get

2. You can't make headroom that isn't there. If the maximum output level
of your source, say a mic preamp, is, say +18 dBu, the best you can do
is set the input level control so that your maximum output level reads 0
dBFS and forget about a "standard" operating level (+4 dBu).

And a third thing: Don't let those Brits confuse you. If you don't use
PPMs, stick to a meter scale that you sort of understand. And remember,
"0 VU" can be any level you want, but
"+4 dBu" is the same the world around.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

On 13/09/2014 13:43, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 9/12/2014 9:48 PM, wrote:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm

Why must I leave this wonderful newsgroup to read an article on a web
page just to find out what your question or comment is about?

The article is an answer to a reader's letter, and it's on the letters
page of Sound On Sound.

The punchline in the article is that you need headroom when you're
recording and mixing, but you can then get rid of that headroom when
distributing, which is something that's been going on since the earliest
days of tape recording. The only thing that changed with digital is that
as the noise floor is lower than it is with tape and the consequences of
overload are so drastic, you now ideally leave more headroom than in the
days of 24 track tape machines.

Quite why themoron@gmail thinks this needs discussing here is beyond me,
too.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Quite why themoron @ gmail thinks this needs discussing here is
beyond me, too.


He thinks it proves that he's right and everyone here on r.a.p. is
wrong, and the article is proof. And "take it up with these guys" is
his boast that he won't be able to argue his point (appeal to
authority fallacy, among others) because he's really not able to
understand all the technical talk and numbers. As always, utter
failure, as the Krissie Koaster derails again. He thinks that the VU
scale can be unambiguously referenced to any other measure of loudness
or signal strength. He refuses to accept that he's just wrong. He's
unable to grasp even the simplest technical reasons that he's wrong;
it's all gibberish to him.

Full scale, dBFS, dBu, peak, dBv, dBSPL, average, dB, volts, VU, PPM,
bits, compression, dynamic range, watts, noise floor, clipping,
loudness, RMS; they all mean pretty much the same thing to him.
They're all incomprehensible numbers, and they're the way those evil
mastering engineers assault him by ruining the imaginary pristine
uncompressed (hehe) audio perfection of his old Badfinger and Led
Zeppelin LPs. And boy, is he ****ed off about it! When he drools about
it, Gearslutz just wipes his post away with toilet paper and flushes
it. So he comes here. The word isn't used much lately, having been
supplanted by terms like "kook", "obsessive", and "nutjob", but he's a
perfect fit for the traditional definition of "crank".



  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

None wrote:
gibbering moron @gmail.com wrote in message
...
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm
=\ means 'not equal to'


Kman means '****ing moron'. Back again, to ride your only hobby horse
(a corpse you beat to death long ago) and make a huge display of what
a ****ing asshole you are. Why do you persist in crapping all over
this newsgroup with your cretinous idiocy? You can''t even comprehend
the article. Don't tell anyone what to "take up" with anyone else.


Actually, this article has nothing to do with his personal hobby horse,
although he might not understand that.

It's a good article, and the people who live in the video world don't
seem to pay attention to the standards we have as it is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

Roy W. Rising wrote:

Then there's the tale of the time the single audio DA feeding both VTRs
failed several minutes into the Lawrence Welk Show and the VTR operators
did not notice! I'll save that one for another time.


Okay, Roy, but don't hold out on us! That sounds heh like a pretty
good tale.

How's your book coming along? g

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 9/12/2014 9:48 PM, wrote:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...s/qa0910-1.htm

Why must I leave this wonderful newsgroup to read an article on a web
page just to find out what your question or comment is about?

Do you have a question? If so, here's the answer:


Together those two sentences are a work of genius here and now.

With digital recording, you, and nobody else (unless there's no knob)
decides how much headroom you want. You make that headroom by adjusting
the input gain of the A/D converter device so that with your nominal
analog level going in (say +4 dBu), the meter reads downscale by the
number of dB of headroom that you want (say -20).

Two things:

1. If there's no input level control, you're stuck with whatever you get

2. You can't make headroom that isn't there. If the maximum output level
of your source, say a mic preamp, is, say +18 dBu, the best you can do
is set the input level control so that your maximum output level reads 0
dBFS and forget about a "standard" operating level (+4 dBu).

And a third thing: Don't let those Brits confuse you. If you don't use
PPMs, stick to a meter scale that you sort of understand.


I suspect we have a case of still learning to understand the metering
represented by traffic lights.

And remember,
"0 VU" can be any level you want, but
"+4 dBu" is the same the world around.


None of which means anything at all to the OP.

Carry on.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Roy W. Rising[_2_] Roy W. Rising[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

(hank alrich) wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

Then there's the tale of the time the single audio DA feeding both VTRs
failed several minutes into the Lawrence Welk Show and the VTR
operators did not notice! I'll save that one for another time.


Okay, Roy, but don't hold out on us! That sounds heh like a pretty
good tale.

How's your book coming along? g


Well, Hank the book is on the back burner. However since you asked me not
to hold out, here 'tis ...


The Lawrence Welk Show Audio Disaster

Preface ~ Bob Buck was an amazing Audio Systems Engineer and Production
Mixer. He designed virtually every audio system at ABC-TV Hollywood until
he left in the early 1970s. He was my Mentor. He showed me how best to
use the audio mixing consoles he had designed. He introduced me to mixing
TV shows with live orchestras.

In 1957 I was the Audio Maintenance Engineer on The Lawrence Welk Show.
The show was done “live to tape”. There was only one “air show” taping.
It was done “an hour in an hour” without stops. There were no retakes.

Immediately after one taping, the Videotape Engineers reported “all the
audio is distorted”. Producer/Director Jim Hobson was hopping mad. I
remember him telling the ABC Unit Manager “You owe me $50,000”, the cost of
each week’s show.

Charlie Cooper was an Audiotape Engineer. He had worked on the Welk show
since the beginning. He would use “scrap” tape to make an audio recording
of each week’s show so copies could be made for anyone of the cast who
might ask. The reason for the scrap tape was that the show would not pay
$6.00 for a new reel every week.

While Hobson and the Unit Manager were having at it, Charlie popped his
head in saying “Well, I have my clean copy. Good night”. The Technical
Manager tore the reel from under Charlie’s arm stating “Somehow, we’re
going to fix this”.

The task was given to Bob Buck. Mono audiotape provided no way to
synchronize with a videotape machine. Buck knew about the Haas Effect.
When there are two sources of the same sound on a pair of loudspeakers, the
one that is slightly ahead of the other will seem to be louder.

Bob set up a variable-speed Ampex audiotape machine by feeding a
Hewlett-Packard audio oscillator through a McIntosh audio power amplifier
to the machine’s capstan motor. Then, listening to the distorted videotape
audio on one speaker and the clean audiotape sound on the other, he “rode”
the HP oscillator for the hour it took to make a clean track on the
videotape.

Later he told me he did not remember anyone saying “Thanks”. Charlie
Cooper was given permission to use new tape for his courtesy recordings.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:

On 14/09/2014 1:41 a.m., John Williamson wrote:


Quite why themoron@gmail thinks this needs discussing here is beyond me,
too.



It stops hyper-compression ! No ? ;-)

geoff
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
Hi Guys! [email protected] Pro Audio 21 February 15th 05 07:12 PM
thanks guys... Tubetwang Vacuum Tubes 4 January 1st 05 04:51 AM
Please guys! Sander deWaal Audio Opinions 19 August 7th 04 05:39 PM
You guys SSadler Pro Audio 4 July 14th 04 04:36 AM
This is it, guys! Sander deWaal Audio Opinions 1 May 20th 04 11:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 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"