Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
0VU =\ -18dBfs? Take it up with these guys:
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hi Guys! | Pro Audio | |||
thanks guys... | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Please guys! | Audio Opinions | |||
You guys | Pro Audio | |||
This is it, guys! | Audio Opinions |