dialog (and lyrics) intelligibility

[William Sommerwerck]

I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of music,
but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and less-incisive
than they were 20 years ago.

I mention this because I have great trouble understanding the lyrics in the
new Muppets commercial for the Honda Explorer. (This is true in general. It
often takes several listens before some parts of advertising dialog are
comprehensible.) I don't think I'm the only person with (more-or-less) normal
hearing who has this problem.

I normally listen at lower-than-average volume levels, and have no trouble
with most movies or TV programming. * I suspect ads (especially ones with
music) are mixed at high levels, without regard for how they sound at
non-heavy-metal volume.

Any thoughts from you pros out there?

* "Klondike" was a major exception. There were many "I can't understand the
dialog!" complaints.

[[email protected]]

The amount of compression used in audio production(for film & TV as well as music) has increased exponentially over the past 15 or so years.


This has reduced the amount of sonic space(time amd frequency) between elements in a finished piece of audio - be it a song, a commercial, or whatever..


Also, busier musical arrangements do not take kindly to such overprocessing, and inevitably something(the vocals?) gets drowned in the mix.


The sources of this compression are three-fold: At the production and post-prod. levels, and in the broadcast chain of TV and radio. An additional layer of processing may be applied at the cable/satellite stage, mangling the sound even further.


I have visited the websites of several mastering companies, where they have Before-and-After-Mastering clips set up in 30-60 second lengths. More often than not have a better time of understanding the lyrics in the "Before"(mix) demo vs the Mastered version.


And that is the case either on my monitor's built-in speakers, my full-sized speakers, or my Shure 440s.


I used to think that the vocals were deliberately being kept low in the mix, or conversely that the instrumentals were purposely being overdriven. But the more I learn about digital processing and compression, the more I realize that the latter is more to blame than the former!


So my suggestion is: Back off on the damn compression - across the entire production and transmission chain! I actually have a harder time setting a volume I prefer with hyper-compressed material(too high, I get a headache, too low, unintelligible) than with relatively or naturally dynamic material. Seriously! And this complaint extends to the current Olympic Winter games coverage.

[Gareth Magennis]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
>music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
>less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.
>
> I mention this because I have great trouble understanding the lyrics in
> the new Muppets commercial for the Honda Explorer. (This is true in
> general. It often takes several listens before some parts of advertising
> dialog are comprehensible.) I don't think I'm the only person with
> (more-or-less) normal hearing who has this problem.
>
> I normally listen at lower-than-average volume levels, and have no trouble
> with most movies or TV programming. * I suspect ads (especially ones with
> music) are mixed at high levels, without regard for how they sound at
> non-heavy-metal volume.
>
> Any thoughts from you pros out there?
>
> * "Klondike" was a major exception. There were many "I can't understand
> the dialog!" complaints.


Possibly:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-background-noise-and-loud-commercials



Gareth.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
> music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
> less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.
>
> I mention this because I have great trouble understanding the lyrics in
> the new Muppets commercial for the Honda Explorer. (This is true in
> general. It often takes several listens before some parts of advertising
> dialog are comprehensible.) I don't think I'm the only person with
> (more-or-less) normal hearing who has this problem.
>

I am sure you're not. You're probably not in the 18-49 demo anymore,
either.

> I normally listen at lower-than-average volume levels, and have no
> trouble with most movies or TV programming. * I suspect ads (especially
> ones with music) are mixed at high levels, without regard for how they
> sound at non-heavy-metal volume.
>

Probably.

> Any thoughts from you pros out there?
>
> * "Klondike" was a major exception. There were many "I can't understand
> the dialog!" complaints.

Cynically, nobody cares about the lyrics. Movie houses aren't about
movies any more.

--
Les Cargill

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
>music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
>less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.
>
> I mention this because I have great trouble understanding the lyrics in
> the new Muppets commercial for the Honda Explorer. (This is true in
> general. It often takes several listens before some parts of advertising
> dialog are comprehensible.) I don't think I'm the only person with
> (more-or-less) normal hearing who has this problem.
>
> I normally listen at lower-than-average volume levels, and have no trouble
> with most movies or TV programming. * I suspect ads (especially ones with
> music) are mixed at high levels, without regard for how they sound at
> non-heavy-metal volume.
>

I've never bothered to hook up external speakers to my TV, but I've started
considering it specifically so I can add little EQ to my taste to the audio.
A little 3K does wonders for picking out the dialog.

But age doesn't just bring reduced HF hearing, you also have a harder time
picking out the converation from the background noise. I find that in a
noisy room I can barely understand a word from people who are speaking
clearly for this reason.

Getting old sucks, except for the good parts.

Sean

[[email protected]]

So my suggestion is: Back off on the damn compression - across the entire production and transmission chain! I actually have a harder time setting a volume I prefer with hyper-compressed material(too high, I get a headache, too low, unintelligible) than with relatively or naturally dynamic material.

I agree... re the headache...

I think the constant barage to the senses due to listening to hours and hours of hyper compressed audio and watching split second editing shot after shot might be partly responsible for some of the behavioral problems kids are having these days.

Seems like a wacko idea I know....but stranger things have happened.

Mark

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>So my suggestion is: Back off on the damn compression - across the entire p=
>roduction and transmission chain! I actually have a harder time setting a v=
>olume I prefer with hyper-compressed material(too high, I get a headache, t=
>oo low, unintelligible) than with relatively or naturally dynamic material.=
>=20

>I agree... re the headache...=20

>I think the constant barage to the senses due to listening to hours and hou=
>rs of hyper compressed audio and watching split second editing shot after s=
>hot might be partly responsible for some of the behavioral problems kids ar=
>e having these days.

>Seems like a wacko idea I know....but stranger things have happened.

Actually, author Jane Healy, in a 1990 book called "Endangered Minds," investigated
aspects of this. She seems spot-on in terms of how frenetic (but passive) visual
stimulation actually changes how young brains get wired, and how later in life this
causes problems for many children.

Don't know if there was any followup work done, but I'm sure we've all seen what she
observed at the time. (And it's only gotten more intense.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[geoff]

On 7/02/2014 10:45 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
> music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
> less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.

You can listen to pristine ultra-fi digital sound with impunity cos you
already have what is known as "analogue warmth" !

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 7/02/2014 10:45 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
>> music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
>> less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.

> You can listen to pristine ultra-fi digital sound with impunity cos you
> already have what is known as "analogue warmth" !

I don't care for "analog warmth". It's a phony coloration.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 7/02/2014 10:45 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
>> music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
>> less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.

> You can listen to pristine ultra-fi digital sound with impunity cos you
> already have what is known as "analogue warmth" !

I don't care for "analog warmth". It's a phony coloration.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"geoff" wrote in message
...
>On 7/02/2014 10:45 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of
>>> music, but I am aware that musical sounds are slightly "sweeter" and
>>> less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.
>
>> You can listen to pristine ultra-fi digital sound with impunity cos you
>> already have what is known as "analogue warmth" !
>
>I don't care for "analog warmth". It's a phony coloration.

I don't even really know what "analog warmth" is, and I don't think any of
the people using that phrase know what it is either.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"geoff" wrote in message
...
>On 7/02/2014 10:45 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>> I no longer hear much above 10kHz. This doesn't affect my
>>>> enjoyment of music, but I am aware that musical sounds are
>>>> slightly "sweeter" and less-incisive than they were 20 years ago.

>>> You can listen to pristine ultra-fi digital sound with impunity
>>> cos you already have what is known as "analogue warmth" !

>> I don't care for "analog warmth". It's a phony coloration.

> I don't even really know what "analog warmth" is, and I don't
> think any of the people using that phrase know what it is either.

To me, it's a kind of "bass bloom". Without it, the sound can become
"analytical" or even "clinical". Live sound (in a concert hall) has "warmth",
but it's mostly from hall ambience. It's not the same thing.

My opinion is that warmth is caused by "bass overhang", induced by rolloff
well-above DC. If digital equipment rolled off below 40Hz, it would probably
sound "warmer". (This has never been tested, that I know.)

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> I don't even really know what "analog warmth" is, and I don't think any of
> the people using that phrase know what it is either.

Of course they do, since it's a meaningless term, just like Humty Dumpty it
can mean whatever they want it to mean.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

>> I don't even really know what "analog warmth" is, and I don't
>> think any of the people using that phrase know what it is either.

> Of course they do, since it's a meaningless term, just like Humpty
> Dumpty it can mean whatever they want it to mean.

As Keye Luke says in "Gremlins", "To hear, one has only to listen." This phony
"warmth" is an obvious quality of most analog recordings. Just because I can't
point to a mechanism that explains its existence, doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.

How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color and
blue is a "cool" color?

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:31:09 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in messagnix.com...
>
>
>
> >> I don't even really know what "analog warmth" is, and I don't
>
> >> think any of the people using that phrase know what it is either.
>
>
>
> > Of course they do, since it's a meaningless term, just like Humpty
>
> > Dumpty it can mean whatever they want it to mean.
>
>
>
> As Keye Luke says in "Gremlins", "To hear, one has only to listen." This phony
>
> "warmth" is an obvious quality of most analog recordings. Just because I can't
>
> point to a mechanism that explains its existence, doesn't mean it doesn't
>
> exist.
>
>
>
> How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color and
>
> blue is a "cool" color?
_________________


If this thread drifts any further the Russians will shoot it down like they did Korean Flight 007 in 198friggin'3!


So I'm listening to Olympic coverage off NBC4 over the air from 30 miles outside of NY City. On the TV, sounds OK. Cross country announcer sits comfortably on top of sounds of crowd cheering and skiing sounds.


On surround system, sounds compressed - no dynamics to challenge my 20 year old DB-Plus speakers! LOL

[[email protected]]

it has been my experience that analog formats that use pre/ de emphaisi (such as disc tape and FM Radio) have a limited dynamic range in the high end and therefore sound warmer compared to digital which has no such limitation.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

> it has been my experience that analog formats that use pre/ de
> emphaisi (such as disc tape and FM Radio) have a limited dynamic
> range in the high end and therefore sound warmer compared to digital
> which has no such limitation.

> I have also found that a concert band recored with mics up in the air
> above the stage sounds bright compared to how it sounds sitting at
> audience level. I have started to shelf the highs above 2 kHz down
> about 5 dB to compensate for this and it gives the reording a nice
> warm sound like it sounds in the hall.

Undefined variable: the microphones you deployed.

> Mark

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
wrote:

>> it has been my experience that analog formats that use pre/de
>> emphasis (such as disc tape and FM Radio) have a limited dynamic
>> range in the high end and therefore sound warmer compared to digital
>> which has no such limitation.

I'm not sure I see the logic of that.


>> I have also found that a concert band recored with mics up in the air
>> above the stage sounds bright compared to how it sounds sitting at
>> audience level. I have started to shelf the highs above 2 kHz down
>> about 5 dB to compensate for this and it gives the reording a nice
>> warm sound like it sounds in the hall.

> Undefined variable: the microphones you deployed.

Yes, but...

Recording closer to the orchestra almost always produces a brighter sound than
in the hall. This has been known for what, 80 years? I believe the default
levels of the AR-3's midrange and tweeter were set to compensate for this.

[geoff]

On 10/02/2014 2:31 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> I don't even really know what "analog warmth" is, and I don't
>>> think any of the people using that phrase know what it is either.
>
>> Of course they do, since it's a meaningless term, just like Humpty
>> Dumpty it can mean whatever they want it to mean.
>
> As Keye Luke says in "Gremlins", "To hear, one has only to listen." This
> phony "warmth" is an obvious quality of most analog recordings. Just
> because I can't point to a mechanism that explains its existence,
> doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color
> and blue is a "cool" color?

Analogue warmth is easy to define.\ - rolled of HF and euphonic distortion .

geoff

[geoff]

On 10/02/2014 10:01 a.m., wrote:

>
> If this thread drifts any further the Russians will shoot it down like they did Korean Flight 007 in 198friggin'3!

Talking about drifting - those camera drones on the
Slopestyle-snowboardy-trick course thing were so stable !

geoff

[geoff]

On 11/02/2014 1:46 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
..
>
> Recording closer to the orchestra almost always produces a brighter
> sound than in the hall. This has been known for what, 80 years? I
> believe the default levels of the AR-3's midrange and tweeter were set
> to compensate for this.

AR made the assumption that most of their users listened to orchestral
music ?!!!

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

> AR made the assumption that most of their users
> listened to orchestral music ?!!!

AR's products certainly weren't designed for people who listened to rock.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>I have also found that a concert band recored with mics up in the air above=
> the stage sounds bright compared to how it sounds sitting at audience leve=
>l. I have started to shelf the highs above 2 kHz down about 5 dB to compen=
>sate for this and it gives the reording a nice warm sound like it sounds i=
>n the hall.

As you raise and lower the microphones, you're moving in and out of the
somewhat directional beam of the brass and you're changing the balances
somewhat between the instruments at the front and the rear as well.

It gets even more fun when you add strings.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>Analogue warmth is easy to define.\ - rolled of HF and euphonic distortion .


Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
>On 11/02/2014 1:46 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
>.
>> Recording closer to the orchestra almost always produces a brighter
>> sound than in the hall. This has been known for what, 80 years? I
>> believe the default levels of the AR-3's midrange and tweeter were set
>> to compensate for this.
>
>AR made the assumption that most of their users listened to orchestral
>music ?!!!

Probably, it would have been a fair assumption when the AR-3 was new.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 10 Feb 2014 16:15:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>geoff > wrote:
>>
>>Analogue warmth is easy to define.\ - rolled of HF and euphonic distortion .
>
>
>Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.
>--scott

Self-defining, don't you think?

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 10 Feb 2014 16:15:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>> Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.

> Self-defining, don't you think?

Quantifiable means something you can put a number on. How about lots of
even-order harmonic distortion?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...

> It's because they're speaking in "Muppetease."
> A lot like English, but not quite.

The current version of the commercial (which has a different end) is much
easier to understand. Whether it's because I know what the lyrics are supposed
to be, or whether they've actually remixed, the sound, I don't know.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/10/2014 6:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
> ...
> On 10 Feb 2014 16:15:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>> Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.
>
>> Self-defining, don't you think?
>
> Quantifiable means something you can put a number on. How about lots of
> even-order harmonic distortion?

So it has nothing to do with being hit in the head with a euphonium?

==
Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--

[geoff]

On 11/02/2014 10:15 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>>
>> Analogue warmth is easy to define.\ - rolled of HF and euphonic distortion .
>
>
> Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.
> --scott
>

The distortion part is objective and measurable.

The 'euphonic' part is subjective, but I think most would agree on what
they find pleasant or unpleasant.

..... on the other hand hearing the quality (lack of) that many younger
people listen to these days, maybe not !

geoff

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:31:09 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color
> and
> blue is a "cool" color?

That's easy, when things get hot enough they turn red, so red is said to be
a "warm" (hot) color. Blue is the other end of the spectrum.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/02/2014 1:46 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Recording closer to the orchestra almost always produces a brighter
>> sound than in the hall. This has been known for what, 80 years? I
>> believe the default levels of the AR-3's midrange and tweeter were set
>> to compensate for this.
>
> AR made the assumption that most of their users listened to orchestral
> music ?!!!

Not too far a stretch I guess, they wouldn't want to use them for hard rock
or heavy metal.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> Analogue warmth is easy to define.\ - rolled of HF and euphonic distortion
> .

But "euphonic" distortion gets a bit harder to define. :-)

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> "geoff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Analogue warmth is easy to define.\ - rolled of HF and euphonic distortion
>> .
>
> But "euphonic" distortion gets a bit harder to define. :-)
>
> Trevor.
>
>


Just an observation - the Nelson Pass website describes tradeoffs in
distortion that are different from the "canonical" "lots of negative
feedback; higher measurable linearity" approach.

This seems to me to be a culture interested in being less obsessed about
harmonic distortion. They also don't seem to be flakes/fetishists; they
signal some skepticism about their own beliefs. But there's more
skepticism about the usual, Julian-Hirsch-in-Stereo-Review model.
This is not presented as a groundless thing. If I read between the
lines correctly, it's almost an information-theoretic approach - neg.
feedback can't be a free lunch even if you account for the loss in
gain.

It's an interesting idea. I have no idea if they're onto something
or not. It does dispense with the illusion that things like amplifiers
are pure gain appliances with no audible effect - although I
pretty much behave like they are colorless, still. I've done
weird things like measure the impulse response of the headphone out on
the (cheap) amp I use, and I don't see a lot of color there.


--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>The distortion part is objective and measurable.
>
>The 'euphonic' part is subjective, but I think most would agree on what
>they find pleasant or unpleasant.

It's not that easy.

For example, I can add in high frequency flutter which will make individual
sounds blend together instead of standing out individually. Some people
might like that, some might not. And there is a third class of people who
will use it as a tool to make overdubbed spotmiked tracks blend together into
a cohesive mix.

The distortion is objective, but the degree to which it is euphonic depends
on the situation.

Same goes for grubby sounding stuff with a lot of odd harmonic distortion.
This can make something sound perceptably louder because people have a
connection between clipping and loudness in their head. It can also make
low frequency instruments come across better when played back on small
speakers. Is the effect euphonic? Depends on the situation.

>.... on the other hand hearing the quality (lack of) that many younger
>people listen to these days, maybe not !

Until we have a good model of the perceptual system, we don't have a good
notion of what distortion mechanisms actually do to sound. At this point
we have a good enough model of hearing to know what a given distortion
spectrum will sound like on a pure tone or a held note, which is saying
something important. We can make good estimates about what wow and flutter
will sound like, even fairly subtle flutter.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:02:21 +1100, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:31:09 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color
>> and
>> blue is a "cool" color?
>
>That's easy, when things get hot enough they turn red, so red is said to be
>a "warm" (hot) color. Blue is the other end of the spectrum.
>
>Trevor.
>

Things get blue when they are really hot. They get red as they cool
down.

d

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/11/2014 11:59 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:02:21 +1100, "Trevor" > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:31:09 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color
>>> and
>>> blue is a "cool" color?
>>
>> That's easy, when things get hot enough they turn red, so red is said to be
>> a "warm" (hot) color. Blue is the other end of the spectrum.
>>
>> Trevor.
>>
>
> Things get blue when they are really hot. They get red as they cool
> down.
>
> d
>
Liquid oxygen is blue and quite cold.
==
L...
RC
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:43:05 -0500, Ron C > wrote:

>On 2/11/2014 11:59 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:02:21 +1100, "Trevor" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:31:09 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> How about explaining what we mean when we say that red is a "warm" color
>>>> and
>>>> blue is a "cool" color?
>>>
>>> That's easy, when things get hot enough they turn red, so red is said to be
>>> a "warm" (hot) color. Blue is the other end of the spectrum.
>>>
>>> Trevor.
>>>
>>
>> Things get blue when they are really hot. They get red as they cool
>> down.
>>
>> d
>>
>Liquid oxygen is blue and quite cold.
>==
>L...
>RC

Only if it isn't wearing a scarf.

d

[geoff]

On 12/02/2014 7:54 a.m., Don Pearce wrote:

>>>>
>>>
>>> Things get blue when they are really hot. They get red as they cool
>>> down.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>> Liquid oxygen is blue and quite cold.
>> ==
>> L...
>> RC
>
> Only if it isn't wearing a scarf.
>
> d
>

It would have to be an analogue scarf though. Digital ones are cold ...

geoff

[Trevor]

"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
>> Things get blue when they are really hot.

Most materials don't go blue, they get white hot. Some materials will go
blue of course, or just about any other color in the spectrum depending on
the elemental composition.

>They get red as they cool down.

It's all relative.

Trevor

[hank alrich]

Ron C > wrote:

> On 2/10/2014 6:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Don Pearce" wrote in message
> > ...
> > On 10 Feb 2014 16:15:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >>> Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.
> >
> >> Self-defining, don't you think?
> >
> > Quantifiable means something you can put a number on. How about lots of
> > even-order harmonic distortion?
>
> So it has nothing to do with being hit in the head with a euphonium?

No, that comes later, in marching band.

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

[Gray_Wolf]

On 11 Feb 2014 09:54:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>We can make good estimates about what wow and flutter
>will sound like, even fairly subtle flutter.
>--scott


Scott, I have some music (pedal steel solo) that I got from the 30
year old master. It has an annoying amount of flutter. You know the
kind that makes a guitar or piano sound like crap. I've managed to
extract the 60 Hz residual hum into what could be a decent pilot tone.
I'm wondering if there is anything I could do to salvage this?

Thanks

[Scott Dorsey]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>On 11 Feb 2014 09:54:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>We can make good estimates about what wow and flutter
>>will sound like, even fairly subtle flutter.
>
>Scott, I have some music (pedal steel solo) that I got from the 30
>year old master. It has an annoying amount of flutter. You know the
>kind that makes a guitar or piano sound like crap. I've managed to
>extract the 60 Hz residual hum into what could be a decent pilot tone.
>I'm wondering if there is anything I could do to salvage this?

You _might_ be able to use software designed to resolve pilot tone tapes
but I know my Nagra hardware resolver has deliberately slow control in
order to prevent it from inadvertently adding such flutter and I would
bet the software does that too.

You also could probably write your own resolver code in matlab to do the
job.

But what you should do is contact Jamie Howarth of Plangent Processes who
does that sort of thing every day, day-in and day-out, and have him do it.
He's got a system that can key on hum but can also usually recover residual
bias on tapes well enough to key on them. He is a very good guy and does
good work.
--scott

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

[Gray_Wolf]

On 12 Feb 2014 07:31:49 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>>On 11 Feb 2014 09:54:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>We can make good estimates about what wow and flutter
>>>will sound like, even fairly subtle flutter.
>>
>>Scott, I have some music (pedal steel solo) that I got from the 30
>>year old master. It has an annoying amount of flutter. You know the
>>kind that makes a guitar or piano sound like crap. I've managed to
>>extract the 60 Hz residual hum into what could be a decent pilot tone.
>>I'm wondering if there is anything I could do to salvage this?
>
>You _might_ be able to use software designed to resolve pilot tone tapes
>but I know my Nagra hardware resolver has deliberately slow control in
>order to prevent it from inadvertently adding such flutter and I would
>bet the software does that too.
>
>You also could probably write your own resolver code in matlab to do the
>job.
>
>But what you should do is contact Jamie Howarth of Plangent Processes who
>does that sort of thing every day, day-in and day-out, and have him do it.
>He's got a system that can key on hum but can also usually recover residual
>bias on tapes well enough to key on them. He is a very good guy and does
>good work.
>--scott

Scott,
Thanks for the reply. Lots of useful info. I just did some reading on
Jamie Howarth and at one point he says "All flutter creates beat
frequencies - sum and difference products appear on all the legitimate
audio intended to have been recorded or played back." No wonder it
makes everything sound like crap.

He definitely sounds like the man to go to.
Thanks again!!

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> Ron C > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2014 6:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On 10 Feb 2014 16:15:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, now define "euphonic distortion" in a quantifiable way.
>>>>
>>>>> Self-defining, don't you think?
>>>>
>>>> Quantifiable means something you can put a number on. How about lots of
>>>> even-order harmonic distortion?
>>>
>>> So it has nothing to do with being hit in the head with a euphonium?
>>
>> No, that comes later, in marching band.
>
> So would an entire section of euphoniums be the Euphoria?
>


Euphonium, I'll pageium.

--
Les Cargill

[jason]

On 12 Feb 2014 07:31:49 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
>

> But what you should do is contact Jamie Howarth of Plangent Processes who
> does that sort of thing every day, day-in and day-out, and have him do it.
> He's got a system that can key on hum but can also usually recover residual
> bias on tapes well enough to key on them. He is a very good guy and does
> good work.
> --scott

Most impressive! I listened to the samples and want to hire Jamie's DSP
programmers...