[Les Cargill]

.... that one of my live multitrack recordings may end up on college
radio (WFIT). The band is called
MD420 ( don't ask what *that* means, I found out - they'll tell you).

mp3s he
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...id=397 845965

It's a milestone for me, anyway.

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

... that one of my live multitrack recordings may end up on college
radio (WFIT). The band is called
MD420 ( don't ask what *that* means, I found out - they'll tell you).

mp3s he
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...id=397 845965

It's a milestone for me, anyway.

nice open sound, but records overmodulated, at least with the sound card
mixer flat out, dunno if this conextant thingie has gain in the digital
domain - I'd consider that unusual and reducing record level still leaves it
flattopped, but a wee bit below zero, so it probably is delivered flattopped
from the stream unpack.

Did you know that mp3's tend to get louder on unpacking? - I never let
anything out above -0.61 dB (x) and when I made my mp3 mix examples on
raw-tracks.com I had to normalize considerably lower to get a reasonably
unclipped unpack, I can't remember it exactly but I think the mp3 unpack
gain was some 2.1 dB. You probably need to experiment with the actual music.
This appears to be a quite unknown property of lossy encoding ....

(x) There's probably still DA converters out there that fail to allow for
the audio being able to exceed 0 dB digital between samples after DA
conversion ....

4now just listening on the laptops speaker, but experience shows that it
sounds open if it sounds open on them and boring if it sounds boring on
them. Additional comments possible later ... oh, and I like the music a lot.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

... that one of my live multitrack recordings may end up on college
radio (WFIT). The band is called
MD420 ( don't ask what *that* means, I found out - they'll tell you).

mp3s he
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...id=397 845965

It's a milestone for me, anyway.

nice open sound, but records overmodulated, at least with the sound card
mixer flat out, dunno if this conextant thingie has gain in the digital
domain - I'd consider that unusual and reducing record level still leaves it
flattopped, but a wee bit below zero, so it probably is delivered flattopped
from the stream unpack.


It's a bit flattopped in spots, yes. I chose -12dB RMS as a target
crest factor and met that by use of a particular limiter. In my
own defense I didn't even look until you brought it up. Use
yer ears, right? Right?

I didn't think those mixes were going anywhere... ooops.

Did you know that mp3's tend to get louder on unpacking? - I never let
anything out above -0.61 dB (x) and when I made my mp3 mix examples on
raw-tracks.com I had to normalize considerably lower to get a reasonably
unclipped unpack, I can't remember it exactly but I think the mp3 unpack
gain was some 2.1 dB. You probably need to experiment with the actual music.
This appears to be a quite unknown property of lossy encoding ....


Those .mp3s are not the delivery mechanism. Delivery is in full PCM.
What I have seen of Lame and CoolEdit96 (my encoder/decoder
respectively) is that I don't see a whole lot of unpack
gain.

(x) There's probably still DA converters out there that fail to allow for
the audio being able to exceed 0 dB digital between samples after DA
conversion ....

4now just listening on the laptops speaker, but experience shows that it
sounds open if it sounds open on them and boring if it sounds boring on
them. Additional comments possible later ... oh, and I like the music a lot.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

nice open sound, but records overmodulated, at least with the sound
card mixer flat out, dunno if this conextant thingie has gain in the
digital domain - I'd consider that unusual and reducing record level
still leaves it flattopped, but a wee bit below zero, so it probably
is delivered flattopped from the stream unpack.

It's a bit flattopped in spots, yes. I chose -12dB RMS as a target
crest factor and met that by use of a particular limiter. In my
own defense I didn't even look until you brought it up. Use
yer ears, right? Right?

huh? - don't forget to use your eyes and your good common sense. If it looks
flattopped then you used the wrong approach when aiming for that target
crest factor and you should investigate whether a non-flattopping approach
sounds better.

I have chosen as "house standard" to go by "average level" as defined by the
statistics window in Audition with 300 ms window size rather than rms. note
to the Audition users reading this: the group normalize displays averaging
by some slightly different definition, possibly to ensure that the operator
remains a wee bit confused. Going by the average from the statics window
almost always works fine for me.

I didn't think those mixes were going anywhere... ooops.

You never know, it is sad that credit is not given, you deserve it. But to
the art of aiming for a crest factor target: first of all it has to be
realistic. The ensemble type you recorded will have an average value
around -27 dB or lower if you make a real stereo recording of them, ie. with
just a pair.

My impression is that you mixed without track compression and then did all
crest factor reduction in one stage at the end. That is not - in my
experience - the least sounding way to do it. I recently recorded an annual
storytelling event for the third consecutive year, and that has taught me a
lot about aiming for a target loudness. Natural vox is around what I call
AVG25 to AVG30, but storytellers may use implements such as temple bells or
shamanic drums and ARE likely to clap their hands right in front of the
recording mic, so what you record is a lot worse. And then there is the
audience, you put out audience mics to get the ambience right and all is
fine and well, but after the storyteller has storytold said audience tends
to also clap their hands. In terms of dynamic range this is as bad as avant
garde jazz ....

The first year I used low level compression in post, it worked fine but
worsened the traffic noise, so next year I used track compression in the mix
in Audition instead and then compressed it all a wee bit with a hand drawn
compressor that tigthen gradually. This year I used real sound recording
gear instead of the 16 bit Fostex harddisk recorder - a very useful
implement in many contexts, but gets absolute polarity wrong - i used the
previous years, and a different vox microphone, still 4 to 5 feet away from
the storyteller, and the usual pair of omnis over the audience. 24 bit
recording made it a lot easier, almost nothing that needed unclipping ....
O;-) ... I used the same track compression on all tracks that I used last
year, but this year I used the multiband compressor with a conservative
setting and getting to the target AVG25 came by itself, and it looks and
sounds unprocessed, except for the applause and the temple bell, those was
the only things to hit the final peak limiter.

A peak limiter is there to catch the strays, not to align the herd, lest it
be heard. With the strays it is indeed the cleanest implement because it
should only influence the sound when it so does.

Back when I was a hifi-purist I thought that track compression is all wrong,
but recent experience with multitrack recording and mixing in conjunction
with the crest factor research I did some years ago shows that some of the
time it track compression is the very approach that restores naturalness
because the crest factor from a single mic close to the sound source is
improbably high, and thus perceptually tiring and unpleasant to listen to.
Naturally occuring audio is in the 20 to 30 dB crest factor range, less with
more bass. Some of the time when people add reverb they do it to fix the
crest factor and all of the time you WILL increase the natural reverb when
compressing or limiting.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

nice open sound, but records overmodulated, at least with the sound
card mixer flat out, dunno if this conextant thingie has gain in the
digital domain - I'd consider that unusual and reducing record level
still leaves it flattopped, but a wee bit below zero, so it probably
is delivered flattopped from the stream unpack.

It's a bit flattopped in spots, yes. I chose -12dB RMS as a target
crest factor and met that by use of a particular limiter. In my
own defense I didn't even look until you brought it up. Use
yer ears, right? Right?

huh? - don't forget to use your eyes and your good common sense. If it looks
flattopped then you used the wrong approach when aiming for that target
crest factor and you should investigate whether a non-flattopping approach
sounds better.


"Sounds better" in this case is pretty much up to me. I do have the
option of a known-non-flattopping method - like the plugin "Peak
Slammer" - but I've recently gotten away from that.

I have chosen as "house standard" to go by "average level" as defined by the
statistics window in Audition with 300 ms window size rather than rms. note
to the Audition users reading this: the group normalize displays averaging
by some slightly different definition, possibly to ensure that the operator
remains a wee bit confused. Going by the average from the statics window
almost always works fine for me.


Interesting. That (average level) is what I've used with CoolEdit96,
with the default 50msec window size. I thought "average level" would
*be* RMS.... changing it to 30 msec doesn't seem to produce that much of
a difference...

I didn't think those mixes were going anywhere... ooops.

You never know, it is sad that credit is not given, you deserve it. But to
the art of aiming for a crest factor target: first of all it has to be
realistic. The ensemble type you recorded will have an average value
around -27 dB or lower if you make a real stereo recording of them, ie. with
just a pair.


So I overshot by 15dB? Wow. I had no idea...

My impression is that you mixed without track compression and then did all
crest factor reduction in one stage at the end. That is not - in my
experience - the least sounding way to do it.


That is correct - that's exactly what I did.

I recently recorded an annual
storytelling event for the third consecutive year, and that has taught me a
lot about aiming for a target loudness. Natural vox is around what I call
AVG25 to AVG30, but storytellers may use implements such as temple bells or
shamanic drums and ARE likely to clap their hands right in front of the
recording mic, so what you record is a lot worse. And then there is the
audience, you put out audience mics to get the ambience right and all is
fine and well, but after the storyteller has storytold said audience tends
to also clap their hands. In terms of dynamic range this is as bad as avant
garde jazz ....

The first year I used low level compression in post, it worked fine but
worsened the traffic noise, so next year I used track compression in the mix
in Audition instead and then compressed it all a wee bit with a hand drawn
compressor that tigthen gradually. This year I used real sound recording
gear instead of the 16 bit Fostex harddisk recorder - a very useful
implement in many contexts, but gets absolute polarity wrong

Interesting, because I also use a 16 bit Fostex, and it seems to get
polarity right....

- i used the
previous years, and a different vox microphone, still 4 to 5 feet away from
the storyteller, and the usual pair of omnis over the audience. 24 bit
recording made it a lot easier, almost nothing that needed unclipping ....
O;-) ... I used the same track compression on all tracks that I used last
year, but this year I used the multiband compressor with a conservative
setting and getting to the target AVG25 came by itself, and it looks and
sounds unprocessed, except for the applause and the temple bell, those was
the only things to hit the final peak limiter.


Interesting.

A peak limiter is there to catch the strays, not to align the herd, lest it
be heard. With the strays it is indeed the cleanest implement because it
should only influence the sound when it so does.


One problem with plugins is that it's never clear exactly what the thing
is really doing...

Back when I was a hifi-purist I thought that track compression is all wrong,
but recent experience with multitrack recording and mixing in conjunction
with the crest factor research I did some years ago shows that some of the
time it track compression is the very approach that restores naturalness
because the crest factor from a single mic close to the sound source is
improbably high, and thus perceptually tiring and unpleasant to listen to.
Naturally occuring audio is in the 20 to 30 dB crest factor range, less with
more bass. Some of the time when people add reverb they do it to fix the
crest factor and all of the time you WILL increase the natural reverb when
compressing or limiting.


Thanks very much for the lesson, Peter. Good stuff....

Kind regards

Peter Larsen




--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message


Back when I was a hifi-purist I thought that track
compression is all wrong, but recent experience with
multitrack recording and mixing in conjunction with the
crest factor research I did some years ago shows that
some of the time it track compression is the very
approach that restores naturalness because the crest
factor from a single mic close to the sound source is
improbably high, and thus perceptually tiring and
unpleasant to listen to. Naturally occuring audio is in
the 20 to 30 dB crest factor range, less with more bass.
Some of the time when people add reverb they do it to fix
the crest factor and all of the time you WILL increase
the natural reverb when compressing or limiting.

Interesting and thought-provoking. Thanks Peter.

[David Grant]

Back when I was a hifi-purist I thought that track compression is all
wrong,
but recent experience with multitrack recording and mixing in conjunction
with the crest factor research I did some years ago shows that some of the
time it track compression is the very approach that restores naturalness
because the crest factor from a single mic close to the sound source is
improbably high, and thus perceptually tiring and unpleasant to listen to.
Naturally occuring audio is in the 20 to 30 dB crest factor range, less
with more bass. Some of the time when people add reverb they do it to fix
the crest factor and all of the time you WILL increase the natural reverb
when compressing or limiting.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room sound
that is recorded?

For dealing with this high crest factor, I assume fast compression (low
release time, high attack time) is the tool of choice?

[David Grant]

For dealing with this high crest factor, I assume fast compression (low
release time, high attack time) is the tool of choice?

Uhm, fast release time, tast attack time

[Les Cargill]

David Grant wrote:
Back when I was a hifi-purist I thought that track compression is all
wrong,
but recent experience with multitrack recording and mixing in conjunction
with the crest factor research I did some years ago shows that some of the
time it track compression is the very approach that restores naturalness
because the crest factor from a single mic close to the sound source is
improbably high, and thus perceptually tiring and unpleasant to listen to.
Naturally occuring audio is in the 20 to 30 dB crest factor range, less
with more bass. Some of the time when people add reverb they do it to fix
the crest factor and all of the time you WILL increase the natural reverb
when compressing or limiting.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room sound
that is recorded?


I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow.

For dealing with this high crest factor, I assume fast compression (low
release time, high attack time) is the tool of choice?



I use a tool much like the Peak Slammer plugin. It divides the samples
into "loops" one one side or the other of zero, then scales them. It's
one I wrote myself.

I *didn't* in this case, hence any flattopping.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:


Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room sound
that is recorded?


I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Don Pearce]

hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room sound
that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.


Were air to do that to any noticeable degree, it would need to be
extremely non-linear, and what you would hear is not so much compression
as gross distortion. That doesn't happen.

On the other hand, what does happen as you get further away is that you
move into the far field. This means that reverberant sound is as
important as direct sound. Reverberation of the peaks then smears into
the following dips (and vice versa) so the fine amplitude detail
disappears, leaving a much more homgeneous time picture.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room sound
that is recorded?

Part of it is the lack of reverb. Part of it is that a lot of instruments
have to be miked in a location that sounds very bright in order to get any
definitioin in the sound when close-miking.

The room takes sounds from all the different parts of the instrument
and mixes them all together. You're not just hearing one sound from
one direction. So, even aside from the various delays in the room
mixing, the overall sound will be more full and less peaky because it
is combining all the different sounds in different directions.

For dealing with this high crest factor, I assume fast compression (low
release time, high attack time) is the tool of choice?

Yes, or brickwall limiting. Or equalizing the top end down, so spiky stuff
is reduced. Or adding fake reverb to smear the peaks out a bit. Or just
pulling the mikes back.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.

If this was what was happening, you would be losing higher frequencies
more and more, the farther away from the instrument you got.

And that does happen a little bit, but it's not the most important thing
that happens, I don't think.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results
in a higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of
room sound that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.


Were air to do that to any noticeable degree, it would need to be
extremely non-linear, and what you would hear is not so much compression
as gross distortion. That doesn't happen.

On the other hand, what does happen as you get further away is that you
move into the far field. This means that reverberant sound is as
important as direct sound. Reverberation of the peaks then smears into
the following dips (and vice versa) so the fine amplitude detail
disappears, leaving a much more homgeneous time picture.

d

Thank you, Don. g

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[David Grant]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results
in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room
sound
that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.


Were air to do that to any noticeable degree, it would need to be
extremely non-linear, and what you would hear is not so much compression
as gross distortion. That doesn't happen.

On the other hand, what does happen as you get further away is that you
move into the far field. This means that reverberant sound is as important
as direct sound. Reverberation of the peaks then smears into the following
dips (and vice versa) so the fine amplitude detail disappears, leaving a
much more homgeneous time picture.

For the determination of crest factor, how large are the time intervals?
Are we talking intervals on the scale of time between cymbal hits, string
plucks, piano notes,etc, or the interval that a typical RMS meter uses?
There is no reverberant energy from an impulse present between time t0 and
the time it takes for the first reflection to arrive, so I assume we're
talking about larger time intervals?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Les Cargill wrote:

"Sounds better" in this case is pretty much up to me. I do have the
option of a known-non-flattopping method - like the plugin "Peak
Slammer" - but I've recently gotten away from that.

Peak Slammer is known to me, it may be the answer to some situations but not
getting into them is likely better.

You never know, it is sad that credit is not given, you deserve it.
But to the art of aiming for a crest factor target: first of all it
has to be realistic. The ensemble type you recorded will have an
average value around -27 dB or lower if you make a real stereo recording
of them,
ie. with just a pair.

So I overshot by 15dB?

I'd need to know the audio better to comment on that math.

Wow. I had no idea...

That however is very bad, know what you do.

My impression is that you mixed without track compression and then
did all crest factor reduction in one stage at the end. That is not
- in my experience - the least sounding way to do it.

That is correct - that's exactly what I did.

I started there too .... until I took up recording storytelling.

This year I used real sound recording gear instead of the 16 bit
Fostex harddisk recorder - a very useful implement in many contexts,
but gets absolute polarity wrong

Interesting, because I also use a 16 bit Fostex, and it seems to get
polarity right....

Well, erm, check your mic pre then, assuming you use an external and
assuming it is an MR8HD.

A peak limiter is there to catch the strays, not to align the herd,
lest it be heard. With the strays it is indeed the cleanest
implement because it should only influence the sound when it so does.

One problem with plugins is that it's never clear exactly what the
thing is really doing...

I'm happy with Audition out of the shrink wrap, it lets me design my own
processing to my liking. It makes a lot of no sense at all to just the same
plug-in everybody else uses. (!carefully read, notation polish inverse).

Thanks very much for the lesson, Peter. Good stuff....

[ bowing ]

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David Grant wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig
results in a higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower
level of room sound that is recorded?

Bingo, direct to reflected ratio. Bose was right, except that he made a
loudspeaker factory that fixed broken recordings via the end consumers
playback system instead of fixing the CBS recordings of that day and age
that only sounded right on his loudspeakers.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce]

David Grant wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results
in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room
sound
that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow
Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.

Were air to do that to any noticeable degree, it would need to be
extremely non-linear, and what you would hear is not so much compression
as gross distortion. That doesn't happen.

On the other hand, what does happen as you get further away is that you
move into the far field. This means that reverberant sound is as important
as direct sound. Reverberation of the peaks then smears into the following
dips (and vice versa) so the fine amplitude detail disappears, leaving a
much more homgeneous time picture.

For the determination of crest factor, how large are the time intervals?
Are we talking intervals on the scale of time between cymbal hits, string
plucks, piano notes,etc, or the interval that a typical RMS meter uses?
There is no reverberant energy from an impulse present between time t0 and
the time it takes for the first reflection to arrive, so I assume we're
talking about larger time intervals?



The first reflection comes off the floor. By the time you are at a
reasonable distance from the source, that will arrive at probably less
than 1mSec after the original sound, so no, large intervals are not
necessary.

d

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:19:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

hank alrich wrote:

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.

If this was what was happening, you would be losing higher frequencies
more and more, the farther away from the instrument you got.

And that does happen a little bit, but it's not the most important thing
that happens, I don't think.
--scott


Dunno. When I reviewed the Neumann TLM49 a few years back, I found them
strident when used up close. I later heard them used as zone mics on an
orchestra and they sounded very nice.

I think that's why there are close and distant capsules available from the
better mic makers. That air DOES make a difference.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room sound
that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.



It's more like air as a medium in a reverberant field, but... I suppose
I could have said that...

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

David Grant wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig results
in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room
sound
that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow
Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.

Were air to do that to any noticeable degree, it would need to be
extremely non-linear, and what you would hear is not so much compression
as gross distortion. That doesn't happen.

On the other hand, what does happen as you get further away is that you
move into the far field. This means that reverberant sound is as important
as direct sound. Reverberation of the peaks then smears into the following
dips (and vice versa) so the fine amplitude detail disappears, leaving a
much more homgeneous time picture.

For the determination of crest factor, how large are the time intervals?
Are we talking intervals on the scale of time between cymbal hits, string
plucks, piano notes,etc, or the interval that a typical RMS meter uses?
There is no reverberant energy from an impulse present between time t0 and
the time it takes for the first reflection to arrive, so I assume we're
talking about larger time intervals?




Yes. The window* the software uses is 30 or 50 msec or so ( it's
settable), and the crest factor is calculated of the whole of the
waveform.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

"Sounds better" in this case is pretty much up to me. I do have the
option of a known-non-flattopping method - like the plugin "Peak
Slammer" - but I've recently gotten away from that.

Peak Slammer is known to me, it may be the answer to some situations but not
getting into them is likely better.

You never know, it is sad that credit is not given, you deserve it.
But to the art of aiming for a crest factor target: first of all it
has to be realistic. The ensemble type you recorded will have an
average value around -27 dB or lower if you make a real stereo recording
of them,
ie. with just a pair.

So I overshot by 15dB?

I'd need to know the audio better to comment on that math.

Wow. I had no idea...

That however is very bad, know what you do.


That's not always 100% possible... I haven't done remote stereo
pairs in thirty years...

My impression is that you mixed without track compression and then
did all crest factor reduction in one stage at the end. That is not
- in my experience - the least sounding way to do it.

That is correct - that's exactly what I did.

I started there too .... until I took up recording storytelling.




This year I used real sound recording gear instead of the 16 bit
Fostex harddisk recorder - a very useful implement in many contexts,
but gets absolute polarity wrong

Interesting, because I also use a 16 bit Fostex, and it seems to get
polarity right....

Well, erm, check your mic pre then, assuming you use an external and
assuming it is an MR8HD.


Nope - used the pres on the Fostex, and from the PA
mixer itself... I'm sorry - thought this was
clear - the flattopping is from the final
limiter, not from bad gain staging.

One of the performers is a bit inexperienced, and caused
three or four sets of overs, but the remainder is clean.

Not that the meters on that box make this easy....


A peak limiter is there to catch the strays, not to align the herd,
lest it be heard. With the strays it is indeed the cleanest
implement because it should only influence the sound when it so does.

One problem with plugins is that it's never clear exactly what the
thing is really doing...

I'm happy with Audition out of the shrink wrap, it lets me design my own
processing to my liking. It makes a lot of no sense at all to just the same
plug-in everybody else uses. (!carefully read, notation polish inverse).


This is true.

Thanks very much for the lesson, Peter. Good stuff....

[ bowing ]

Kind regards

Peter Larsen




--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the reason why a close micnig
results in a
higher crest factor? Is it due to the relatively lower level of room
sound
that is recorded?

I'm not Peter, but yes. Air between the sound source and the
mic damps things... somehow

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.


Were air to do that to any noticeable degree, it would need to be
extremely non-linear, and what you would hear is not so much compression
as gross distortion. That doesn't happen.

On the other hand, what does happen as you get further away is that you
move into the far field. This means that reverberant sound is as
important as direct sound. Reverberation of the peaks then smears into
the following dips (and vice versa) so the fine amplitude detail
disappears, leaving a much more homgeneous time picture.

d


Thanks, Don.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:19:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

hank alrich wrote:
Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.
If this was what was happening, you would be losing higher frequencies
more and more, the farther away from the instrument you got.

And that does happen a little bit, but it's not the most important thing
that happens, I don't think.
--scott


Dunno. When I reviewed the Neumann TLM49 a few years back, I found them
strident when used up close. I later heard them used as zone mics on an
orchestra and they sounded very nice.

I think that's why there are close and distant capsules available from the
better mic makers. That air DOES make a difference.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA



In my own defense , I was using the word "air" to mean
what Don said - to sum up conceptually all the reflections,
echoes and reverb from a big space full of air. Air does
get nonlinear*, but not in this case.

*cavitates...

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:19:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

hank alrich wrote:

Air is an elastic medium. It compresses and decompresses ever so
slightly and converts some of that crest energy into heat.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Perhaps somebody who knows something will tell us what's really going
on.

If this was what was happening, you would be losing higher frequencies
more and more, the farther away from the instrument you got.

And that does happen a little bit, but it's not the most important thing
that happens, I don't think.

Dunno. When I reviewed the Neumann TLM49 a few years back, I found them
strident when used up close. I later heard them used as zone mics on an
orchestra and they sounded very nice.

Absolutely! This happens all the time!

I think that's why there are close and distant capsules available from the
better mic makers. That air DOES make a difference.

I think it's the room, though, and not the compressibility of the air.

It would be interesting to see how different the effect is outside or in
an anechoic chamber.
--scott


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