Re: Pianoroom acoustics revisited.

[Steve Holt]

Looks like a very live room. But very low level on the recording. Couldn't
really hear it without cranking the speakers. What kind of piano is that?

Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt


"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> In April we discussed here the acoustics of a relatively small piano
> studio. There was some doubt if a pianoroom this size (about 15' by 16')
> would be feasable. I received a lot of good suggestions, thanks!
>
> The pianoroom now is finished and I am quite content with the result.
>
> Important for the design was to use absorbant materials with a very flat
> absorbtion curve. The ceiling has Ecophon tiles at a distance ranging from
> 4" to 13". These tiles give an absorbtion of about 50% for the whole
> frequency range. Furthermore I used wall materials with some texture and
> added a closet of about 3'6" by 4' in one corner to break two of the
> surfaces. Materials for floor and walls are quite reflective (wood).
>
> For sound isolation a lot of mass sure helps. The (freestanding) room has
> a sound isolation of about 60dB. This helps to keep the noise outside
> during recordings and to keep the music inside while playing late.
>
> You can see pictures of the result at:
> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/www/studio.html
> I've done some recordings. Still should find better microphone positions
> for a better stereo image. The recording is available at
> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/playlists/2-1h.m3u
>
>
> --
> Chel van Gennip
> Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com

[Tjako van Schie]

I am building one too :)
http://www.tjakovanschie.com/Studio_Photo_Gallery.html (photo comments in
dutch)
Almost done constructing ...

regards,
Tjako van Schie, pianist
http://www.tjakovanschie.com


"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> In April we discussed here the acoustics of a relatively small piano
> studio. There was some doubt if a pianoroom this size (about 15' by 16')
> would be feasable. I received a lot of good suggestions, thanks!
>
> The pianoroom now is finished and I am quite content with the result.
>
> Important for the design was to use absorbant materials with a very flat
> absorbtion curve. The ceiling has Ecophon tiles at a distance ranging from
> 4" to 13". These tiles give an absorbtion of about 50% for the whole
> frequency range. Furthermore I used wall materials with some texture and
> added a closet of about 3'6" by 4' in one corner to break two of the
> surfaces. Materials for floor and walls are quite reflective (wood).
>
> For sound isolation a lot of mass sure helps. The (freestanding) room has
> a sound isolation of about 60dB. This helps to keep the noise outside
> during recordings and to keep the music inside while playing late.
>
> You can see pictures of the result at:
> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/www/studio.html
> I've done some recordings. Still should find better microphone positions
> for a better stereo image. The recording is available at
> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/playlists/2-1h.m3u
>
>
> --
> Chel van Gennip
> Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com

[James Boyk]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> ...Current consumer audio equipment is quite capable of handling a
> dynamic range of 90 dB and to handle a high peak volumes. Still everyone
> tries to only use the upper few dB's of this dynamic range.


I'm in complete sympathy with the spirit of your remarks; but I doubt that
consumer gear can handle a 90 dB range. If the background level of the listening
room is 25 dBA, then the top end of the range has to be 115 dBA at the
listener's ears. Very few speakers can do that at any frequency, and even fewer
can do it in the bass. (I'm ignoring the further problem of whether the
amplifier that produces enough power for the loud moments really has adequate
resolution for the bottom end of the range.)


If the purpose of the room is to record classical music, I respectfully wonder
why it's so dry and why proportioned to have room modes so close to each other?
(By the way, what's the height? 16 feet X 15 feet X ____ feet)


Again, with respect, the piano almost sounds plucked instead of struck. This can
happen with spaced omnis; is that what you're using? (Or am I getting it
confused in memory with a simulated piano I heard on another site today?)


I'm very impressed with 60 dB isolation!


James Boyk

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> BTW, I think it is a strange habit to get a high mean level on audio
> tracks. Current consumer audio equipment is quite capable of handling a
> dynamic range of 90 dB and to handle a high peak volumes. Still everyone
> tries to only use the upper few dB's of this dynamic range. If you don't
> your recording is not remarked between all others that do.

> For the last 250 years instrument builders have tried to improve the
> dynamic range of this instrument.

What is being suggested is that the peaks be allowed somewhere near the
non-distorted peak of the recording medium of choice. This in no way
reduces the dynamic range of the piano, but it does put the upper
portions of its energy well above the noise floor. I'd not suggest
processing, but I would suggest using the dynamic range available. This
is a matter of gain staging.

Note: listening is impractical for me, on a slow dial-up connection.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Steve Holt]

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:56:11 +0200, Steve Holt wrote:
>
> > I hate compression on piano. But you've got to do something to bring up
> > those levels. I'm sure you could hit the tape harder. And if possible, a
> > limiter would help.
>
> These recordings are to show the room, so there is no processing.
>
> BTW, I think it is a strange habit to get a high mean level on audio
> tracks. Current consumer audio equipment is quite capable of handling a
> dynamic range of 90 dB and to handle a high peak volumes. Still everyone
> tries to only use the upper few dB's of this dynamic range. If you don't
> your recording is not remarked between all others that do.
>
> For the last 250 years instrument builders have tried to improve the
> dynamic range of this instrument.
>


Dude, we're not talking about reducing the dynamic range.
I could barely hear the freeking thing.

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Steve Holt > wrote:

> Dude, we're not talking about reducing the dynamic range.
> I could barely hear the freeking thing.

I guess you need a louder computer.

--
ha

[Howard Rosen]

I found the recording levels appropriate for the music. Schubert has a wide
dynamic range which Serg has fully realized. Leveling it on either end
would be a disservice.

HOWARD ROSEN HOLLYWOOD,FL


"Steve Holt" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:56:11 +0200, Steve Holt wrote:
> >
> > > I hate compression on piano. But you've got to do something to bring
up
> > > those levels. I'm sure you could hit the tape harder. And if possible,
a
> > > limiter would help.
> >
> > These recordings are to show the room, so there is no processing.
> >
> > BTW, I think it is a strange habit to get a high mean level on audio
> > tracks. Current consumer audio equipment is quite capable of handling a
> > dynamic range of 90 dB and to handle a high peak volumes. Still everyone
> > tries to only use the upper few dB's of this dynamic range. If you don't
> > your recording is not remarked between all others that do.
> >
> > For the last 250 years instrument builders have tried to improve the
> > dynamic range of this instrument.
> >
>
>
> Dude, we're not talking about reducing the dynamic range.
> I could barely hear the freeking thing.
>
> --
> Steve Holt
> INNER MUSIC
> Music Creation & Production
> http://www.inner-music.com
> http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt
>
>

[Brothermark]

> I am building one too :)
> http://www.tjakovanschie.com/Studio_Photo_Gallery.html (photo comments in

Blimey, there are waaaaaayyyy too many photos for public consumption there.
There are about 10 times too many photos.... I'm not exaggerating

mark

[Rob Reedijk]

In rec.audio.pro Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> The recording was made at 24/96, it was normalised to a peak level of
> -0.09db before conversion to 16/44.1. For the first 10 minutes the peak
> level is -1.5dB.

Then you have recorded at correct levels, or perhaps you have even recorded
at a slightly too high level! Don't listen to people telling you to
compress---they should stick to pop music.

Rob R.`
>

[Steve Holt]

Rob,
No one told him to compress. At least I didn't.
I said the ambient level on his recording was too low, and that he should
hit the tape harder. And I recommended a limiter if necessary. None of this
compromises the dynamic range.

Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt


"Rob Reedijk" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro Chel van Gennip > wrote:
>
> > The recording was made at 24/96, it was normalised to a peak level of
> > -0.09db before conversion to 16/44.1. For the first 10 minutes the peak
> > level is -1.5dB.
>
> Then you have recorded at correct levels, or perhaps you have even
recorded
> at a slightly too high level! Don't listen to people telling you to
> compress---they should stick to pop music.
>
> Rob R.`
> >

[Steve Holt]

"Howard Rosen" > wrote in message
...
> I found the recording levels appropriate for the music. Schubert has a
wide
> dynamic range which Serg has fully realized. Leveling it on either end
> would be a disservice.
>
> HOWARD ROSEN HOLLYWOOD,FL




If you found the levels appropriate, you must have dog ears. OTOH, my human
ears which have been bombarded by years of loud music, could hardly hear the
goddam thing.

Eh? Whazzat? You say sompthin?

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[Brothermark]

> Don't listen to people telling you to
> compress---they should stick to pop music.

Nobody advised him to use compression.
They just suggested the levels were too low.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:57:49 +0200, LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

> > Chel van Gennip > wrote:

> >> BTW, I think it is a strange habit to get a high mean level on audio
> >> tracks. Current consumer audio equipment is quite capable of handling a
> >> dynamic range of 90 dB and to handle a high peak volumes. Still
> >> everyone tries to only use the upper few dB's of this dynamic range. If
> >> you don't your recording is not remarked between all others that do.

> >> For the last 250 years instrument builders have tried to improve the
> >> dynamic range of this instrument.

> > What is being suggested is that the peaks be allowed somewhere near the
> > non-distorted peak of the recording medium of choice. This in no way
> > reduces the dynamic range of the piano, but it does put the upper
> > portions of its energy well above the noise floor. I'd not suggest
> > processing, but I would suggest using the dynamic range available. This
> > is a matter of gain staging.

> The recording was made at 24/96, it was normalised to a peak level of
> -0.09db before conversion to 16/44.1. For the first 10 minutes the peak
> level is -1.5dB.

Interesting. You realize that normalizing something is a form of
processing and that it is not the same as capturing the original signal
at the level to which one later normalized it? So I'm going to point
back to gain staging, because the amount of level added in mormalizing
could have been captured at the time of recording, without the later act
of processing.

> > Note: listening is impractical for me, on a slow dial-up connection.

> There is also a version at 25kbps for dial-up connection at:
> http://www.serg.vangennip.com/playlists/2-1.m3u

Thanks.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Brothermark > wrote:

> > Don't listen to people telling you to
> > compress---they should stick to pop music.

> Nobody advised him to use compression.
> They just suggested the levels were too low.

Which is quite possible, as he stated he normalized the file.

--
ha

[Rick Hollett]

A limiter doesn't compomise the dynamic range? Could you pls explain?

thanks

Rick Hollett
"Steve Holt" > wrote in message
...
> Rob,
> No one told him to compress. At least I didn't.
> I said the ambient level on his recording was too low, and that he should
> hit the tape harder. And I recommended a limiter if necessary. None of
this
> compromises the dynamic range.
>
> Steve Holt
> INNER MUSIC
> Music Creation & Production
> http://www.inner-music.com
> http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt
>
>
> "Rob Reedijk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.audio.pro Chel van Gennip > wrote:
> >
> > > The recording was made at 24/96, it was normalised to a peak level of
> > > -0.09db before conversion to 16/44.1. For the first 10 minutes the
peak
> > > level is -1.5dB.
> >
> > Then you have recorded at correct levels, or perhaps you have even
> recorded
> > at a slightly too high level! Don't listen to people telling you to
> > compress---they should stick to pop music.
> >
> > Rob R.`
> > >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003

[Roger Christie]

"Steve Holt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Howard Rosen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I found the recording levels appropriate for the music. Schubert has a
> wide
> > dynamic range which Serg has fully realized. Leveling it on either end
> > would be a disservice.
> >
> > HOWARD ROSEN HOLLYWOOD,FL
>
>
>
>
> If you found the levels appropriate, you must have dog ears. OTOH, my
human
> ears which have been bombarded by years of loud music, could hardly hear
the
> goddam thing.

For my part, I did have to crank the gain /way/ up to hear much of anything.



>
> Eh? Whazzat? You say sompthin?
>
> --
> Steve Holt
> INNER MUSIC
> Music Creation & Production
> http://www.inner-music.com
> http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt
>
>

[James Boyk]

Very nice performance!


James Boyk
Pianist in Residence, California Institute of Technology
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk

[James Boyk]

>>If you found the levels appropriate, you must have dog ears.


> For my part, I did have to crank the gain /way/ up to hear much of anything.



Dynamic range; it's called dynamic range, guys. Its high peaks and deep chasms
and not for the faint of heart. But, you know, that's daily life for us
classical guys. And when it's all over, it's Miller Time.



James Boyk
Pianist in Residence, California Institute of Technology
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk

[James Boyk]

James Boyk should have written:


> Dynamic range; it's called dynamic range, guys. Its high peaks
and deep chasms ARE not for the faint of heart. But that's daily
life for us classical guys. And when it's all over, it's Miller Time.


jb

[Steve Holt]

Assuming the gain on the mic pres is properly set, you increase the output
levels, and set the limiter to catch any strays (transients) that might try
to jump over the wall and distort. The limiter would only kick in on the
occasional transient. Voila, a hotter recording without compression.

Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

"Rick Hollett" > wrote in message
...
> A limiter doesn't compomise the dynamic range? Could you pls explain?
>
> thanks
>
> Rick Hollett
> "Steve Holt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rob,
> > No one told him to compress. At least I didn't.
> > I said the ambient level on his recording was too low, and that he
should
> > hit the tape harder. And I recommended a limiter if necessary. None of
> this
> > compromises the dynamic range.
> >
> > Steve Holt
> > INNER MUSIC
> > Music Creation & Production
> > http://www.inner-music.com
> > http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt
> >
> >
> > "Rob Reedijk" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.audio.pro Chel van Gennip > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The recording was made at 24/96, it was normalised to a peak level
of
> > > > -0.09db before conversion to 16/44.1. For the first 10 minutes the
> peak
> > > > level is -1.5dB.
> > >
> > > Then you have recorded at correct levels, or perhaps you have even
> > recorded
> > > at a slightly too high level! Don't listen to people telling you to
> > > compress---they should stick to pop music.
> > >
> > > Rob R.`
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003
>
>

[James Boyk]

Chel van Gennip wrote: > ...I don't get the full 24 bits of dynamic range....


You sure don't: no converters come close to giving true 24-bit performance. If
you're getting a legitimate 19 bits, you're doing better than most.


But I agree, the difference between 16 and even 18 bits is substantial and
worthwhile.


If you're really recording only to reduce to 44.1, though, why not record 24/88
and give the conversion algorithm an easier time of it?


James Boyk

[Rick Hollett]

Good call, James. Do you ever use limiters when recording jazz or classical,
or any other music with a lot of dynamics? With the wider dynamic range in
the newer formats(24/96, 24/192, SACD, etc), one would think less processing
of dynamics(namely limiters) would be desireable, thereby, preserving the
full integrity of the sound.

Rick
"James Boyk" > wrote in message
...
> James Boyk should have written:
>
>
> > Dynamic range; it's called dynamic range, guys. Its high peaks
> and deep chasms ARE not for the faint of heart. But that's daily
> life for us classical guys. And when it's all over, it's Miller Time.
>
>
> jb
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003

[James Boyk]

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> I really don't think anyone needs a true 24 bit (dynamic range 144dB) for
> sound processing.


Read the papers (in AESJ) by Louis Fielder of Dolby Labs and you may be
surprised. Real-world dynamic range of unamplified sources can be > 130 dB.



> It really is nice to have recording facilities that outperform the target.


Please! NOTHING outperforms the live music! We're just running along behind it
trying to capture some fraction of its power and delicacy.




> I remember the old day's with taperecorders, trying to get the needle just
> between green and red for an optimal result. Life sure is getting easy
> with these new technologies.


You think so? Try some good ribbon mikes in Blumlein pair on your piano with a
really fine tube mike preamp, and the resulting improvement in sound may give
your digital equipment a hard time preserving it.




>>If you're really recording only to reduce to 44.1, though, why not
>>record 24/88 and give the conversion algorithm an easier time of it?



> Now the CD standard of 44.1 still is used often, there is a shift to
> multiples of 48 for new media. As the conversion from 96=>44.1 is not too
> difficult, although propper conversion does take some time, I do prefer
> 96khz for my masters.


SACD uses a multiple of 44.1, not 48. What "new media" are you referring to?


All of these rate conversions are hard on sound quality, I believe. It may
behoove you to think of getting better monitor equipment.



James Boyk

[Brothermark]

> The limiter would only kick in on the
> occasional transient. Voila, a hotter recording without compression.

interesting.
I hate to sound picky but didn't you just describe the very process that a
compressor does?

[Brothermark]

> > It really is nice to have recording facilities that outperform the
target.

> Please! NOTHING outperforms the live music! We're just running along
behind it
> trying to capture some fraction of its power and delicacy.

His target is 44khz.
I think you misunderstood.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Brothermark > wrote:

> > The limiter would only kick in on the
> > occasional transient. Voila, a hotter recording without compression.

> interesting. I hate to sound picky but didn't you just describe the very
> process that a compressor does?

No, he's talking about a peak limiter, not a compressor. There are grey
areas where the two may meet, but for instance, a Waves L2 is not a
compressor and a UREI LA-2 is not a peak limiter.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Rick Hollett]

I'm with you, there. With most engineers, it's all about the level, not the
dynamics. Of course we could be on to a new thread here. Any takers?

Rick
"James Boyk" > wrote in message
...
> Rick Hollett wrote:
> > Good call, James. Do you ever use limiters when recording jazz or
classical,
> > or any other music with a lot of dynamics?
>
>
> I do so little recording that I'm something of a fraud in this group; but
no, I
> would never consider using limiting or compressing, knowing first-hand as
I do
> how very hard musicians work to achieve a wide and "speaking" dynamic
range.
>
>
> James Boyk
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003

[Tjako van Schie]

"Brothermark" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I am building one too :)
> > http://www.tjakovanschie.com/Studio_Photo_Gallery.html (photo comments
in
>
> Blimey, there are waaaaaayyyy too many photos for public consumption
there.
> There are about 10 times too many photos.... I'm not exaggerating
>
> mark
>

I will reduce the amount once the thing is finished.
The photos are thumbs, so you can choose which one(s) you want to view
large.

regards,
Tjako
http://www.tjakovanschie.com

[Noiseboy]

In article >,
James Boyk > wrote:

> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>
> > I really don't think anyone needs a true 24 bit (dynamic range 144dB) for
> > sound processing.
>
> > Read the papers (in AESJ) by Louis Fielder of Dolby Labs and you may be
> surprised. Real-world dynamic range of unamplified sources can be > 130 dB.

Sure they can. But that doesn't mean that those levels will be
reproduced by the listener.

For arguments sake, assume an ambient noise level of a typical listening
room at 30dB. Assume that an the highest level a normal (no significant
hearing loss) person might desire is 100dB.

Let's provide 20dB of headroom, so that our peak levels are 120dB.

The dynamic range is 120-30 or 90dB.

A very quiet, dedicated listening room might have an ambient noise level
in the 20-25 dB range, and a hearing impaired consumer might want to
listen at 105dB with 20dB peaks.

In this case, the dynamic range is 105 dB.

I'd be surprised if most people really listen to rooms that are in the
20-25dB range, or that most people listen to music at 105dB.

Do most people really need the dynamic range that 24bit provides?

[James Boyk]

No, you need to read Fielder's papers.


James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> The original post explained how the shape of a room has a big influence on
> acoustic behaviour. This is why mode calculators fail if the room is not
> box shaped. Unless floor and ceiling act as a waveguide, 60hz audio waves
> will not act as asumed in these mode calculaturs due to the Huygens
> principle. The recording shows the absence of the effect you describe.
> In fact the room is not dry, but there are no frequency peaks. Therefore
> it sounds dryer. The measured RT time is 0.6 to 0.7 sec.


I guess I just don't understand this. I did think the room was box-shaped; if
it's not, things are more complicated, but surely there are programs these days
that can calculate the modes and distribution, no? Anyway, ears are probably a
better guide.


(And on my less-than-perfect computer monitor system, it does sound as though
there's a bump in the sound in upper bass. I wonder how you're measuring that
there are "no frequency peaks.")




> I am using omnis and I am still looking for the best placement.


I would suggest you're still looking because spaced omnis can't do it right.
Image, attack and tonal neutrality will be screwed up to some degree. These
effects diminish as the mikes are moved closer together, at the cost of
approaching mono rather than stereo. I've heard some nice recordings with
close-spaced omnis, but the attack still isn't right. It sounds plucked rather
than struck----unless the mikes are *really* wide-spaced, in which case you hear
multiple attacks.



James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> IMHO the new 24 bits (or comparable) standards lack an adjustment
> for the new dynamic range. It would have been better if these new
> standards had a "mean level indicator" or just had set the mean level at
> -20 dB of maximum level or even lower. Now the mean level still is as
> close as possible to the maximum level, compatible with CD, because one
> does not want to change volume settings when switching media. This throws
> away almost all the benefits of the extra dynamic range. Nobody can hear
> anything 100 dB below the normal listening level of 80 dB!


We are sure speaking two different languages. Why does the absence of a nominal
0-level indicator matter. The available dynamic range is the available dynamic
range. Place the range of the signal within it as you will. This has always been
true for all media. The 0-level on traditional VU meters was a more or less
helpful device for the purpose, but didn't absolve the engineer of the
responsibility of setting the 'dynamic window' of his recording medium in the
right place.




> I also think compression (of dynamic range) should be a standard feature
> on audio equipment, as the demand for compression depends on the listening
> conditions: car set, hearing impaired, lack of acoustic isolation to
> neigbours (50dB isolation or less is normal).


You repeatedly stating things as "normal." Where do you get these figures? For
whom is "normal listening level" 80 dB? That might be nice; and it may be so in
many home situations; it isn't in any studio I've been in; and I've never seen
it referred to as a standard. Nor have I seen the 50dB-isolation-to-neighbors as
a standard.



You're a musician and you're pushing compression? I can't believe it! What about
(1) your dynamic range? (2) the integrity of attacks?




> It is important that the industry combines efforts. Of SACD and DVD I
> think only one will remain, the medium with multimedia capabilities has
> the best chances.


In other words, like everyone else, you want to choose which one survives.



James Boyk

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Brothermark wrote:

> > So turn the volume control up on playback. That's what it's for.

> This makes the hiss get louder

Only if one's own system is lousy or the program is stashed at a very
low level.

> and it also makes you bust your ears &
> speakers when you put a different CD on afterwards

How much effort and brains are needed to turn a volume knob and remember
that one should do so?

--
ha

[Kurt Albershardt]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
> How much effort and brains are needed to turn a volume knob and remember
> that one should do so?

Nowadays? Apparently more than popular music consumers are assumed to
have or use.

[Steve Holt]

--

"LeBaron & Alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> Brothermark wrote:
>
> > > So turn the volume control up on playback. That's what it's for.
>
> > This makes the hiss get louder
>
> Only if one's own system is lousy or the program is stashed at a very
> low level.

But this is the point of my original criticism. The program is recorded at a
very low level.
And if cranking up the volume knob on one's stereo adds hiss, it's about the
S/N ratio. There is always a noise floor.

ha

Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[Steve Holt]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Holt > wrote:
> >
> >If you found the levels appropriate, you must have dog ears. OTOH, my
human
> >ears which have been bombarded by years of loud music, could hardly hear
the
> >goddam thing.
>
> So turn the volume control up on playback. That's what it's for.
> --scott
> --

NOW you tell me.
All this time I've been using it for turning down the volume on the crap
coming out of the music industry.


Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[Scott Dorsey]

Brothermark > wrote:
>
>> So turn the volume control up on playback. That's what it's for.
>
>This makes the hiss get louder and it also makes you bust your ears &
>speakers when you put a different CD on afterwards

This is the twenty-first century. We have 16 bits to play with, a huge
96 dB of dynamic range. If you hear hiss when you turn it up to a
comfortable listening level, you have something wrong on your playback
system.

This is NOT the era of having to ride gains to maximize the 35 dB usable
range on a cold-stylus cutter any longer. Things don't have to sound like
those old Toscanini records where you could just feel the engineer turning
those attenuators back and forth.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Rick Hollett wrote:

> After a little thought, I have to agree. This "normalizing" thing a lot of
> folks use, will in fact boost the noise as well as the music, so if proper
> gainstaging was followed, ther would be a cleaner signal. It is a little
> hard to predetermine dynamics of a performance, so it's understandable why
> levels are kept down a tad.

Leaving 12 or 18 dB of headroom going into a 24 bit system isn't too
difficult, and a consistently good player will probably be okay once the
level is adjusted.

I've not yet had luck getting that file to play, but I'll try again. I'm
quite curious.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Edvard]

Rick Hollett wrote:

> It is a little
> hard to predetermine dynamics of a performance, so it's understandable why
> levels are kept down a tad.

Greetings,

It's not so hard to predict levels in a studio situation. Just watch the
meters during the loudest and softest sections and mark them. If it exceeds
your target dynamic range, then you'll have to be riding the gain. Even when
recording live, one can ask the performers to try out the loudest and
softest spots before the concert. There is the old saying, "Fool me once,
shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Regards,

Edvard

[WillStG]

>> Chel van Gennip > wrote:
>In theory yes, but with a piano it is hard to predict the actual sound level.
Therefore I record at 24/96. I don't get the full 24 bits of dynamic range, but
a lot more than 16 bits. Enough to keep a safe distance from the actual upper
limit while recording. The actual normalising and resampling (24/96 => 16/44.1)
is done in one single step, so losses are marginal if any. >

Chel, after you've been recording your piano in there for awhile you
should be able to find level settings where even at it's loudest you don't get
peaks on your DAT or digital recorder meters above about -5dbFS. That should
be a good level to keep the noise floor down - when you "normalize" you bring
up the noise floor up and you want to minimize that as much as possible, you
might even decide it sounds loud enough that you don't need to normalize.

I admire the work that went into building your room, I just wish you had
built a slightly larger room with a higher ceiling! You might have a friend
come in and play for you so you can focus on finding the optimal positions in
the room for placing your piano and for placing the mics.

Good luck.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Steve Holt]

> You might have a friend
> come in and play for you so you can focus on finding the optimal positions
in
> the room for placing your piano and for placing the mics.


This is one of the most intelligent suggestions for those of us who involved
in recording our own piano performances. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find the best
place to mic a piano when you're the one playing it.


Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[WillStG]

>Chel van Gennip
>The peak level in the 24/96 recording was -5.91 dB. IMHO normalizing a
>-5.91 dB 24/96 recording to a -0.09 dB 16/44.1 file is not something
>to build a complete discussion about, especially if the topic is about
>"pianoroom acoustics".

That's fine then. I wouldn't even bother normaling that myself. I did A/B
your tracks in my computer against what I did in a big room 3 weeks ago and it
was pretty much the same levelwise.

Are you doing the B&K 30-50 CM apart with a spaced AB pair of omni's?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[James Boyk]

In certain frequency ranges, as Fielder has found, background noise level can be
very low whether in professional control rooms, concert halls or typical home
listening rooms. IF you want reproduction of live music at its original level,
and IF you want the reproduction to add zero audible noise in ANY band, then in
fact a very very wide dynamic range is necessary. See Fielder's papers.


I would add only that your figures may be typical for Europe, or even embodied
in legislation; but they're not necessarily typical for the rest of the world.
In the USA, some people have home situations worse than what you describe, some
better.



James Boyk

[James Boyk]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> Leaving 12 or 18 dB of headroom going into a 24 bit system isn't too
> difficult, and a consistently good player will probably be okay once the
> level is adjusted.


I must have missed something. Why would one leave so much headroom? If you do a
level-setting using the loudest places in the piece to be performed; and if you
then allow N dB (see below) for performance adrenalin, you're fine, no? Unless
you're saying that before the digital stage, some problem in amplifiers or
converters requires the level to be lower?


N will vary for different performers. For me, it's about 3 dB but I allow 4 or
5. For one professional student of mine, it's 0: she hits exactly the same peak
level in concert as before the concert (and yes, her playing shows a lot of
performance excitement). For many amateur players, it can be 6-8 dB. I do know
of one situation in a direct-disk Lp session long ago where it was 15---but
that's otherwise far beyond anything I've heard of. I just can't imagine a
normal situation where anything like 12 would be required, let alone 18. That's
3 bits you're throwing away!


James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> Sugested reading:
> http://www.who.int/environmental_information/Information_resources/documents/Noise/noise1.pdf


I don't get the point. This document doesn't at all affect my previous comment.
The standards it suggests for noise exposure are rather "permissive"; that is,
such exposure is louder than I'd like to like with personally. (The 140dB figure
as being OK for impulsive-noise exposure is absurdly high; according to experts
I've interviewed, 124 dB results in instantaneous & irreversible damage.)


But no matter what the document suggests, so what? What does it have to do with
the topic under discussion, which was your assuming that (1) overall dB figures
tell the whole story about how many bits are necessary in a digital
system---they don't; and (2) figures proposed for (not typical of) Western
Europe have relevance everywhere else---they don't.


James Boyk

[Rob Reedijk]

In rec.audio.pro James Boyk > wrote:

> I do so little recording that I'm something of a fraud in this group; but no, I
> would never consider using limiting or compressing, knowing first-hand as I do
> how very hard musicians work to achieve a wide and "speaking" dynamic range.

The other thing is, if you ever do dabble with compression (or limiting,
Steve---the intrusion on the musicality is equivalent) the classical players
definitely hear it. They devote so much energy to working with dynamics
that a bit of dynamic control screams to them. Really, they spend hours
on the smallest detail, so when that one chord gets clamped back by
3 or 6 dB, they hear, it, because they spend days trying to get it up
there.

I am more of a pop music guy when comes to writing and playing, so this is
often a big challenge for me.

Rob R.

[Steve Holt]

"Rob Reedijk" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro James Boyk > wrote:
>
> > I do so little recording that I'm something of a fraud in this group;
but no, I
> > would never consider using limiting or compressing, knowing first-hand
as I do
> > how very hard musicians work to achieve a wide and "speaking" dynamic
range.
>
> The other thing is, if you ever do dabble with compression (or limiting,
> Steve---) the classical players
> definitely hear it. They devote so much energy to working with dynamics
> that a bit of dynamic control screams to them. Really, they spend hours
> on the smallest detail, so when that one chord gets clamped back by
> 3 or 6 dB, they hear, it, because they spend days trying to get it up
> there.
>
> I am more of a pop music guy when comes to writing and playing, so this is
> often a big challenge for me.
>

Rob, my good man -
How do you figure that the "the intrusion on the musicality is equivalent"
whether it be compression or limiting?
Remember that my scenario had the limiter set to only kick in for the
occasional transient. The rest of the time the limiter, she's a quiet little
Dominatrix.

Unless you are refering to the alteration in sound from adding one more
piece of gear in the signal path, but this is the same with any piece of
gear, give or take.
I no unner stan.

Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[WillStG]

<< "Steve Holt" >>
<< Remember that my scenario had the limiter set to only kick in for the
occasional transient. The rest of the time the limiter, she's a quiet little
Dominatrix.

Unless you are refering to the alteration in sound from adding one more piece
of gear in the signal path, but this is the same with any piece of gear, give
or take. I no unner stan.>>

If you compare a classical recording to a pop recording you'll think the
levels are low, but A/B classical CD's with other classical CD's you'll see
it's pretty consistent. You wanna record classical music you don't use any
limiting or compression, them's the rules and that's how it's done, it's the
minimalist esthetic.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(WillStG)
> You wanna record classical music you don't use any
>limiting or compression, them's the rules and that's how it's done, it's the
>minimalist esthetic.

As in "anesthetic"... <g> Doh!


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[James Boyk]

If the music is compromised at its climax, if it doesn't really "hit it," it
compromises the entire narrative of the music as expressed in its dynamics. This
is the danger of limiting.


Whether the danger turns into sonic frustration in any given case is a matter of
the details of how the limiter operates. But if it is *not* audible--so that it
won't compromise the music--then it isn't doing much to help out the signal, I
should think.


This topic reminds me of the loudspeaker designed by, I think, Daniel van
Recklinghausen (sp?) for KLH many years ago. It was a little two-way system
about the size of the famous British LS3/5A. But this KLH system had a clever
little box that got inserted between preamp and power amp. After you'd
calibrated the whole thing---I don't remember how that was done---it gave
remarkable performance because when the music was soft, the speaker would work
down to low frequencies! As the music got louder, if low frequencies were still
present, the extension of the signal would be limited for the woofer wouldn't
travel dangerously far. KLH was so chuffed about this cleverness that they never
reflected on the *musical* impact of the engineering; which was, of course, that
precisely when you wanted to hear the Most from the dynamics and bass, and
precisely when the low-level performance had Led you to expect that you would
get it---at precisely that moment, you did *not* get it! It was the Frustration
Special. That's my fear about limiters. If they're doing something, it will be
something bad. If they're not doing anything, why use them?


But as I have no experience with them, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.


James Boyk

[Rob Reedijk]

In rec.audio.pro Steve Holt > wrote:

> "Rob Reedijk" > wrote in message
>> The other thing is, if you ever do dabble with compression (or limiting,
>> Steve---) the classical players
>> definitely hear it. They devote so much energy to working with dynamics
>> that a bit of dynamic control screams to them. Really, they spend hours
>> on the smallest detail, so when that one chord gets clamped back by
>> 3 or 6 dB, they hear, it, because they spend days trying to get it up
>> there.
>>
> Rob, my good man -
> How do you figure that the "the intrusion on the musicality is equivalent"
> whether it be compression or limiting?
> Remember that my scenario had the limiter set to only kick in for the
> occasional transient. The rest of the time the limiter, she's a quiet little
> Dominatrix.

As I said, it is audible. Classical pianists spend days agonising over small
phrases of music. You and I may not hear it. But they do. What they
do is detail-oriented, it is unbelievable.

Rob R.

[Steve Holt]

"James Boyk" > wrote in message
...
> If the music is compromised at its climax, if it doesn't really "hit it,"
it
> compromises the entire narrative of the music as expressed in its
dynamics. This
> is the danger of limiting.
>
>
> Whether the danger turns into sonic frustration in any given case is a
matter of
> the details of how the limiter operates. But if it is *not* audible--so
that it
> won't compromise the music--then it isn't doing much to help out the
signal, I
> should think.

Negatory. There are times when a quick transient can be limited and yet
there is no audible change - no perceived change in amplitude. You do this
so that the transient doesn't cause an over. YMMV (Your mind may vary.)

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[ScotFraser]

<< Negatory. There are times when a quick transient can be limited and yet
there is no audible change - no perceived change in amplitude. You do this
so that the transient doesn't cause an over. >>

Agreed, & with a DAW this can be done at the level of a single waveform leading
edge, buying you a couple db of headroom with no perceived loss of dynamic
range.


Scott Fraser

[James Boyk]

ScotFraser wrote:
> Agreed, & with a DAW this can be done at the level of a single waveform leading
> edge, buying you a couple db of headroom with no perceived loss of dynamic
> range.


I can see this making sense if you had a high-res digital master recording and
you did this on the way to making a CD master from it. This process would
achieve a higher resolution in the final recording. 2 dB = 1/3 bit.


I'd be interested to hear several really high-quality recordings "before" and
"after" this process, though.


James Boyk

[ScotFraser]

<< I'd be interested to hear several really high-quality recordings "before"
and
"after" this process, though. >>

And I'm talking about manually applying the gain reduction to specific peaks,
not a global process.


Scott Fraser