Doug McDonald[_7_]
August 23rd 10, 05:51 PM
Audio Empire wrote:
>
> I said that BIS recordings USED to sound as if they were compressed. I was
> careful to note that I hadn't bought any in a number of years and what BIS
> does NOW, I cannot and did not say.
>
> What I'm not sure that I understand is what "normalizing the level" means in
> van Bahr's context. Any software that "down-samples a 24-bit master (or even
> a DSD Master) to 16/44.1 should cause the recording to be mapped to the lower
> bit depth without having to have the level manipulated. "level normalization
> of whole pieces of music."
I simply meant that presumably the 24 bit recording does not come close
to 0 dB peak level, like -6 of -10 dB peak, so when it was converted to
16 bit, the peak level for the 16 bit master would be set at say -0.5
dB, peak, for a whole piece of music (usually several tracks, and the
tracks would be adjusted as a block not seperately).
And there would be proper dither unless the noise on the 24 bit
master made that unnecessary.
Doug McDonald
>
> I said that BIS recordings USED to sound as if they were compressed. I was
> careful to note that I hadn't bought any in a number of years and what BIS
> does NOW, I cannot and did not say.
>
> What I'm not sure that I understand is what "normalizing the level" means in
> van Bahr's context. Any software that "down-samples a 24-bit master (or even
> a DSD Master) to 16/44.1 should cause the recording to be mapped to the lower
> bit depth without having to have the level manipulated. "level normalization
> of whole pieces of music."
I simply meant that presumably the 24 bit recording does not come close
to 0 dB peak level, like -6 of -10 dB peak, so when it was converted to
16 bit, the peak level for the 16 bit master would be set at say -0.5
dB, peak, for a whole piece of music (usually several tracks, and the
tracks would be adjusted as a block not seperately).
And there would be proper dither unless the noise on the 24 bit
master made that unnecessary.
Doug McDonald