VU Meters

[mcp6453[_2_]]

With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a
stereo program buss?

http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ

I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a
>stereo program buss?
>
>http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
>
>I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.

There really aren't many. The Dorrough is even more money. You can
find surplus meters and add resistors and metalwork yourself.

I think Simpson will still sell you a real VU meter movement for $250.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 2:54:54 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> mcp6453 > wrote:
> >With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a
> >stereo program buss?
> >
> >http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
> >
> >I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.
>
> There really aren't many. The Dorrough is even more money. You can
> find surplus meters and add resistors and metalwork yourself.
>
> I think Simpson will still sell you a real VU meter movement for $250.
> --scott

Which means you're probably better off cannibalizing them from someplace.

Two other possibilities: National Semiconductor, in their datasheets for the LED-array drivers which power a lot of peak-reaing meters, gave a circuit which supposedly emulated BU meter ballistics. I have no idea how well it worked.

And Heathkit claimed that the meter on their Audio Analyzer (an SMPTE IM meter) had true-VU ballistics. I've found it useful as a good stand-in. Of course, for stereo you'd need two of them -- plus a way to line up your 0 VU point to the boxes'.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

Er, VU.

Peace,
Paul

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

mcp6453 wrote:
> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a
> stereo program buss?
>
> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
>
> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.
>
>

Find an old cassette deck.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

PStamler wrote:
> Er, VU.
>

.... Brutus?

> Peace,
> Paul
>

--
eLs Cargill

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

mcp6453 > wrote:

> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less
> expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a stereo program
> buss?
>
> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
>
> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.

RS Components have a cheap meter movement in their catalogue which is
calibrated in "VU" and has a non-linear magnetic field to give a
suitable response. You would have to add a rectifier and metalwork.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
mcp6453 > wrote:
> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less
> expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a stereo program
> buss?

> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ

> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.

Thing with a VU is that to make the spec, the actual meter movement has to
be very well made. Hence the high cost. Most of the VUs you see on
domestic equipment don't meet the spec.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...

> Find an old cassette deck.

A true VU meter has specific "ballistic" characteristics that take into
account the nature of music.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/23/2014 5:04 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Find an old cassette deck.

There are VU meters, and there are meters that look like VU meters. Old
cassette decks have the latter.

A real VU meter is a joy to use, even for digital recording when you set
the reference level properly (0 VU = -20 dBFS or so)

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:30:03 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> A real VU meter is a joy to use, even for digital recording when you set
> the reference level properly (0 VU = -20 dBFS or so)

"or so." The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them....

Yours truly,
Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler > wrote:
>
>Two other possibilities: National Semiconductor, in their datasheets for the LED-array drivers which power a lot of peak-reaing meters, gave a circuit which supposedly emulated BU meter ballistics. I have no idea how well it worked.

It was not half bad! It was not as good as the Dorrough or the vacuum
fluorescent meters that Radio Systems used in the eighties, but it was
very close to a real VU meter although it did not overshoot properly.

Oh... RTW also makes very expensive and very accurate standalone meters...
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> mcp6453 > wrote:
>> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less
>> expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a stereo program
>> buss?
>
>> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
>
>> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.
>
>Thing with a VU is that to make the spec, the actual meter movement has to
>be very well made. Hence the high cost. Most of the VUs you see on
>domestic equipment don't meet the spec.

Do you even see them on domestic consumer equipment today?
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/23/2014 2:55 PM, Klay Anderson wrote:
>> A real VU meter is a joy to use, even for digital recording when you set
>> >the reference level properly (0 VU = -20 dBFS or so)

> "or so." The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them....

In this case, it's not a standard, just a recommendation (mine). A
standard is 0 VU = +4 dBu or +4 dBm or +8 dBm because those are
established industry standard levels which generally allow a certain
amount of headroom above them (which is typically not specified) since
maximum output level (however that's specified) isn't always known.

The nice thing about digital audio is that you can choose the amount of
headroom that you want. 0 dBFS is absolute, so if you want 20 dB of
headroom over a 0 reading on your VU meter, you set 0 VU at -20 dBFS,
assuming your A/D converter has an input level control and you can
actually do that. If you want to live on the edge and allow only 10 dB
of headroom, you can set 0 VU to represent -10 dBFS. Or anywhere in
between.

It was typical on DAT recorders for there to be a marker at -16 or -18
dBFS, and you could calibrate that to represent 0 on your VU meter, if
you had one.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > mcp6453 > wrote:
> >> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less
> >> expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a stereo program
> >> buss?
> >
> >> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
> >
> >> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.
> >
> >Thing with a VU is that to make the spec, the actual meter movement has
> >to be very well made. Hence the high cost. Most of the VUs you see on
> >domestic equipment don't meet the spec.

> Do you even see them on domestic consumer equipment today?

I made that comment with reference to :-

**********

From: Les Cargill >
Subject: Re: VU Meters
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 04:00
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro

Find an old cassette deck.

*********

Being UK broadcast based, VUs were simply things fitted to some pro tape
recorders and best ignored. ;-)

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
> > >In article >,
> > > mcp6453 > wrote:
> > >> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less
> > >> expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a stereo program
> > >> buss?
> > >
> > >> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
> > >
> > >> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.
> > >
> > >Thing with a VU is that to make the spec, the actual meter movement has
> > >to be very well made. Hence the high cost. Most of the VUs you see on
> > >domestic equipment don't meet the spec.
>
> > Do you even see them on domestic consumer equipment today?
>
> I made that comment with reference to :-
>
> **********
>
> From: Les Cargill >
> Subject: Re: VU Meters
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 04:00
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>
> Find an old cassette deck.
>
> *********
>
> Being UK broadcast based, VUs were simply things fitted to some pro tape
> recorders and best ignored. ;-)

I find BBC-type PPMs much easier to use and the readings tally better
with the apparent loudness as well as indicating the actual signal
level.

<http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/CBAT01_3666s.JPG>


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . invalid>,
Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
> > Being UK broadcast based, VUs were simply things fitted to some pro
> > tape recorders and best ignored. ;-)

> I find BBC-type PPMs much easier to use and the readings tally better
> with the apparent loudness as well as indicating the actual signal
> level.

Oh. That's fighting talk these days. It's all now about loudness meters
that apparently anyone can read without training. But if anything levels
between programmes are now more adrift than was once the case.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News):


This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since its inception. ;)

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote: "Oh. That's fighting talk these days. It's all now about loudness meters "


Denying that there's a problem, are we?

[John Williamson]

On 24/12/2014 10:45, wrote:
> This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since its inception. ;)
>
The purpose of VU meters was to give an indication of levels in a way
useful when recording on tape, which could safely be overdriven to a
certain extent without sounding too nasty. The purpose of peak meters is
to give an accurate indication of the maximum levels going into
transmitters or a digital chain, where peaks that are even slightly too
high can give very unpleasant sounding clipping.

If anything, peak metering *prevents* nastiness when recording digitally
or driving a transmitter, while using VU metering in these cases can
give rise to clipped peaks unless the engineer leaves a large margin for
error.

In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> skrev i en meddelelse
...

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote: "Oh. That's fighting talk these days. It's all
> now about loudness meters "

> Denying that there's a problem, are we?

There is the same issue as there was in the days of the VU-meter: operator
competence, it is no more of an issue nor no less.

Merry Christmas!

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Peter Larsen > wrote:
> > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...

> > Dave Plowman (News) wrote: "Oh. That's fighting talk these days. It's
> > all now about loudness meters "

> > Denying that there's a problem, are we?

> There is the same issue as there was in the days of the VU-meter:
> operator competence, it is no more of an issue nor no less.

In one. The best 'meter' in the world is a decent pair of ears. But the
suits know only too well those cost more than mere electronics.

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson, et al:


Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too many problems(getting level up too close to it, etc) despite its alleged usefulness in preventing digital overs & clipping. It's human nature to do so, and moving zero down from the top(via VU or loudness meter) will eliminate these problems.

[John Williamson]

On 24/12/2014 12:39, wrote:
> John Williamson, et al:
>
>
> Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too many problems(getting level up too close to it, etc) despite its alleged usefulness in preventing digital overs & clipping. It's human nature to do so, and moving zero down from the top(via VU or loudness meter) will eliminate these problems.
>
No it doesn't generally cause problems. As has been said on another post
on this thread, the problem is with the person using the meters, not the
meters themselves.

The metering I use has green bars up to a certain point, then yellow,
then the top few are red.

Green is on the quiet side, yellow is okay, red is dead. It works for me...

It makes it easy to scan a board, as if I catch a glimpse of a red out
of the corner of my eye, then I know a channel is too hot without having
to constantly scan a number of meters, which would be the case if I were
using your preferred traditional VU meters.

If you have problems working with peak level meters, then use whatever
works for you, just don't tar all engineers with the same brush.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> skrev i en meddelelse
...

> John Williamson, et al:

> Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too
> many problems(getting level up too close to it, etc) despite
> its alleged usefulness in preventing digital overs & clipping.

No.

> It's human nature to do so, and moving zero down from the top
> (via VU or loudness meter) will eliminate these problems.

No.

At the risk of upstaging a participant from a more westerly location
relative to London: your line of reasoning has moved from the incompetent to
a lower level. It is a well established conceptual standard that zero dB is
the adjustment reference level.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "

> Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too
> many problems(getting level up too close to it, etc) despite
> its alleged usefulness in preventing digital overs & clipping.

No.

> It's human nature to do so, and moving zero down from the top
> (via VU or loudness meter) will eliminate these problems.

No.

At the risk of upstaging a participant from a more westerly location
relative to London: your line of reasoning has moved from the incompetent to
a lower level. It is a well established conceptual standard that zero dB is
the adjustment reference level.
Kind regards

Peter Larsen "

Peter I'd be saying the same thing regardless of where I was from, LOL: I'm accounting for simple psychology in this regard. People(not just engineers, but church board operators, backyard DJs, bedroom recordists) naturally aim for zero dB, or just above it, regardless of where zero is on a scale. It's not going to make sense or seem natural for them when they are told to peak between -6 and -12 on a full-scale digital meter with zero at the top. They'll even apply compression and/or hard limiting to get that meter to 'stick' closer to 0dBfs.

But with zero at -18 or -20 on that same scale, the concept of HEADROOM(old 20th century relic to some here) becomes abundantly clear.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/24/2014 1:20 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In one. The best 'meter' in the world is a decent pair of ears. But the
> suits know only too well those cost more than mere electronics.

When it comes to recording, that has to be coupled with proper setup and
calibration since you can't always hear distortion until you play back
the recording. If you try to calibrate your system so that 0 on the
analog meter and 0 on the digital meter agree, you're guaranteed plenty
of clipping when you start recording music that way, unless you barely
let the VU meter move.

Of course when it comes to mixing, mastering, and making it loud, that's
a matter of exercising good (or bad) taste. A loudness meter is useful
for determining whether a full program is compliant with the law.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 24/12/2014 13:34, wrote:
> Peter Larsen wrote: "
> At the risk of upstaging a participant from a more westerly location
> relative to London: your line of reasoning has moved from the incompetent to
> a lower level. It is a well established conceptual standard that zero dB is
> the adjustment reference level.
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen "
>
> Peter I'd be saying the same thing regardless of where I was from, LOL: I'm accounting for simple psychology in this regard. People(not just engineers, but church board operators, backyard DJs, bedroom recordists) naturally aim for zero dB, or just above it, regardless of where zero is on a scale. It's not going to make sense or seem natural for them when they are told to peak between -6 and -12 on a full-scale digital meter with zero at the top. They'll even apply compression and/or hard limiting to get that meter to 'stick' closer to 0dBfs.
>
Then the people who do this need better training. The only ones who
might be doing this out of habit while following their training are the
ones who learnt on analogue tape based systems. Anyone learning on a
digital system will rapidly work out that 0dB means the absolute
maximum, if they've got a decent set of ears.

> But with zero at -18 or -20 on that same scale, the concept of HEADROOM(old 20th century relic to some here) becomes abundantly clear.
>
The analogue parts of the chain probably have some headroom even at 0dB
meter reading. The digital part hasn't. If I'm running an entirely
analogue desk and system, then I am a bit more relaxed about high meter
levels than I am on a digital desk.

Your perceived problem is not due to the meters, it's due to poor
training of the operator.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/24/2014 12:13 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> The purpose of VU meters was to give an indication of levels in a way
> useful when recording on tape, which could safely be overdriven to a
> certain extent without sounding too nasty.

That's the practical application in recording. The original intent of
the VU meter was to show broadcasters that their speech level was correct.

When it became desirable to drive tape into non-linearity on occasion
(some say "always, for sure") we started calibrating recorders so that
the VU meter was a useful indicator of when we were in that region
between clean-as-possible and "creative distortion,"

Since A/D converters don't have such as broad a range of acceptable
distortion as tape, like, practically no range at all, VU metering for
digital recording fell out of practice in favor of a meter that shows
how much headroom you have before calamity.

But what good is a meter that people only use to show that they've
pushed as hard as they can go, not how well they're doing at adjusting
levels?


> The purpose of peak meters is
> to give an accurate indication of the maximum levels going into
> transmitters or a digital chain, where peaks that are even slightly too
> high can give very unpleasant sounding clipping.

There used to be a red light for that, and I still think that the VU
meter with an LED to indicate a user-calibrated peak level above 0 VU is
the most useful visual indicator for setting record level.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/24/2014 1:39 PM, wrote:
> Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too many
> problems(getting level up too close to it, etc) despite its alleged
> usefulness in preventing digital overs & clipping.

It makes perfectly good sense if you understand the concept of headroom
and use it as a headroom meter, not a level meter. But I guess it was
the best they could do without re-educating a world of consumers.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/24/2014 1:51 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> The metering I use has green bars up to a certain point, then yellow,
> then the top few are red.
>
> Green is on the quiet side, yellow is okay, red is dead. It works for me...

What I'd like to see on every digital meter is greater resolution close
to full scale. All too often the last step on the meter before red is
-10 dBFS or so. Same goes for digital meters showing analog levels. For
example, the meter on my Mackie Onyx mixer is stepped like this:

+20 (clip)
+10
+7
+4
+2
0
with the same steps below 0

So what you have is the rough equivalent of a mechanical VU meter that
has good resolution around 0, but if you're feeding an A/D converter
from the mixer that's calibrated so that +20 on the mixer's meter is 0
dBFS, you have 10 dB of ambiguity between the last indicator before you
reach clipping. When the +10 LED is on, your record level could be
anywhere between -10 dBFS or just a hair under 0 dBFS.

While it's good advice to keep the level such that the +10 LED only
blinks occasionally, try to tell that to someone who wants slamming
drums, slamming guitars, slamming bass, and slamming vocals.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> John Williamson, et al:
>
>
> Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too many
> problems

Note everyone is as stupid as you are.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 24/12/2014 10:45, wrote:
>> This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since its inception. ;)
>
>The purpose of VU meters was to give an indication of levels in a way
>useful when recording on tape, which could safely be overdriven to a
>certain extent without sounding too nasty. The purpose of peak meters is
>to give an accurate indication of the maximum levels going into
>transmitters or a digital chain, where peaks that are even slightly too
>high can give very unpleasant sounding clipping.

Actually, the purpose of VU meters was to give an indication of perceived
levels on telephone lines.

VU meters were problematic even in the analogue tape era... the tape would
clip 20 dB below the +3 mark on a trumpet even though you could bring a
flute all the way up to the end of the scale.

Which is why we got PPM meters, which never caught on in the US but became
almost universal in the UK.

It is VERY nice to have the RME dual-reading meters which give you a peak
bar (with peak hold!) and a VU-ballistic bar overlaid on top of one another,
because it gives you some notion of just what your crest factor is by eye.

>If anything, peak metering *prevents* nastiness when recording digitally
>or driving a transmitter, while using VU metering in these cases can
>give rise to clipped peaks unless the engineer leaves a large margin for
>error.

Yes, precisely. Peak and average metering systems are different tools for
different jobs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 24/12/2014 12:39, wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but having Zero at the top of anything just causes too many problems(getting level up too close to it, etc) despite its alleged usefulness in preventing digital overs & clipping. It's human nature to do so, and moving zero down from the top(via VU or loudness meter) will eliminate these problems.
>>
>No it doesn't generally cause problems. As has been said on another post
>on this thread, the problem is with the person using the meters, not the
>meters themselves.

The meters come from an era when volume controls had the zero at the top and
an infinity at the bottom. Which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

>The metering I use has green bars up to a certain point, then yellow,
>then the top few are red.
>
>Green is on the quiet side, yellow is okay, red is dead. It works for me...

If you believe it. The Mackie consoles start to sound funny well below the
point where the meter goes yellow. On the other hand, you can slam the
meters on the Neve and it sounds just fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> The meters come from an era when volume controls
> had the zero at the top and an infinity at the bottom.

You mean no one made a volume control that went to 11?


> Which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Not really. Given that dBs are logarithmic, 0 is an easily understood
reference for maximum input level..

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> > The meters come from an era when volume controls
> > had the zero at the top and an infinity at the bottom.

> You mean no one made a volume control that went to 11?


> > Which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

> Not really. Given that dBs are logarithmic, 0 is an easily understood
> reference for maximum input level..

Depends on your training. To someone with no training 0 would mean nothing?

100% would be maximum.

And in the UK, if you talk about 0 level to an older sound tech in
broadcast, it actually means 8dB below peak.

With the agreed EBU line-up for digital systems, this is still the case.
With 0 level referring to 18dBFS. Ie 10dB of headroom for any errors. And
some broadcasters still stick to this for transmission. Sadly some of the
radio people do not, and peak to 0dBFS. And since in the UK the TV
transmission system also carries most radio, you get the nonsense of some
radio services peaking 10dB higher than TV sound.

--
*What hair colour do they put on the driver's license of a bald man? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

heres a good idea for an invention...

video cameras have a mode called ZEBRA STRIPES which casue any area that is oversaturated white to have ugly obvious stripes through it. This appears only in the view finder and does not go on the recording and is meant to alert the videographer that the white is being clipped.

A simialr device would be interesting in an audio monitor. If you go over clipping, it makes a loud obvious obnoxious noise to alert you...well some op amps already do that.... :-)

Mark

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> skrev i en meddelelse
...

> here's a good idea for an invention...

> video cameras have a mode called ZEBRA STRIPES which
> casue any area that is oversaturated white to have
> ugly obvious stripes through it. This appears only
> in the view finder and does not go on the recording
> and is meant to alert the videographer that the white
> is being clipped.

> A simialr device would be interesting in an audio monitor.
> If you go over clipping, it makes a loud obvious obnoxious
> noise to alert you...well some op amps already do that.... :-)

First: some blind users already deploy some kind of a buzzer or tingler.

Next: what you suggest, if verbatim deployed, would be a grave hearing
damage risk and also a risk to monitoring transducers.

Third: recordists work by the credo "yellow is the new red" and thus
nowadays tend to sit on their fingers to avoid touching any gain buttons so
as to avoid having to do the inverse gain riding in post.

You come across as having only a modest, if at all any, comprehension of the
record and post workflows.

> Mark

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

>> Not really. Given that dBs are logarithmic, 0 is an easily
>> understood reference for maximum input level..

> Depends on your training. To someone with no training 0 would mean nothing?

Oh, I do so want to make a wisecrack about recording engineers. But I won't.


> With 0 level referring to 18dBFS. ie, 10dB of headroom for any errors.

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest passage
from the works they were performing, then set the level about 1dB below that.
My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder during the actual
performance.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

> wrote:

> heres a good idea for an invention...
>
> video cameras have a mode called ZEBRA STRIPES which casue any area that
> is oversaturated white to have ugly obvious stripes through it. This
> appears only in the view finder and does not go on the recording and is
> meant to alert the videographer that the white is being clipped.
>
> A simialr device would be interesting in an audio monitor. If you go over
> clipping, it makes a loud obvious obnoxious noise to alert you...

"Coaster 1.1" from 1999 does this. I still run it on Mac OS8.6 for most
of my stereo recordings.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[geoff]

On 24/12/2014 11:45 p.m., wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News):
>
>
> This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since its inception. ;)
>


You again demonstrate you lack of understanding.

geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Not really. Given that dBs are logarithmic, 0 is an easily
>>> understood reference for maximum input level..
>
>> Depends on your training. To someone with no training 0 would mean
>> nothing?
>
> Oh, I do so want to make a wisecrack about recording engineers. But I
> won't.
>
>
>> With 0 level referring to 18dBFS. ie, 10dB of headroom for any errors.
>
> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
> passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
> 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
> during the actual performance.


That's an incredibly narrow margin to set ! If they play what you
notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "You again demonstrate you lack of understanding. "

Read my reply to Peter Larsen, mid-thread, and tell me what I "don't understand".

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote

>> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
>> passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
>> 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
>> during the actual performance.

> That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you notice to
> be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>geoff wrote: "You again demonstrate you lack of understanding. "
>
>Read my reply to Peter Larsen, mid-thread, and tell me what I "don't understand".

For one thing, you don't understand the basic metering theory.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"geoff" wrote in message
...
>On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote
>
>>> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
>>> passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
>>> 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
>>> during the actual performance.
>
>> That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you notice to
>> be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.
>
>I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.
>

My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
- show quoted text -"

Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>heres a good idea for an invention...
>
>video cameras have a mode called ZEBRA STRIPES which casue any area that is=
> oversaturated white to have ugly obvious stripes through it. This appears=
> only in the view finder and does not go on the recording and is meant to a=
>lert the videographer that the white is being clipped.
>
>A simialr device would be interesting in an audio monitor. If you go over =
>clipping, it makes a loud obvious obnoxious noise to alert you...well some =
>op amps already do that.... :-)

Some first generation converters would roll over when you hit full scale,
that is the next sample after FS would be -FS. This would create a deafening,
sometimes speaker-damaging pop when you overloaded.

I am surprised to discover the Cymatic recorder's monitoring D/A still does
this, and honestly it can be a useful diagnostic if proper protection is
employed.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
>My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
>when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
>would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
>something else louder that wasn't forseen.
>- show quoted text -"
>
>Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

The majority does, I suspect. But this is tracking.

>Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.

I've already gone over the whole thing too many times. At this point I
have pretty much given up trying to explain how metering works to you,
and why reference levels and final product loudness are unrelated.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS.
> Because when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder
> than they said it would be in performance, and then add 12dB
> worth of safety margin for something else louder that wasn't
> forseen.

It only once went past what I expected -- and only by 1dB.

Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi DMP-100, nee Sony
PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away discarding three bits.

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "I've already gone over the whole thing too many times. At this point I "

No you didn't - else I would have remembered it. All you stated was that VU and digital full scale meters measured different things. That I've already figured out.

What I'm trying to emphasize here is the psychological, the perception of Zero, regardless of what type of meter and type of measurement it does. Even without much instruction, on a cheap Gemini mixer in college radio I "aimed for zero" VU and allowed for only occasional 1-2dB excursions over zero..

If, in that day long ago I had been presented with a meter with zero at the top, I'd probably have been aiming for just below zero. That is what I think has also been going on at the recording, mixing, and mastering stages of an album project.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> At this point I have pretty much given up trying to explain
> how metering works to you, and why reference levels and
> final product loudness are unrelated.

Shall I?

If all you're worried about is getting the best S/N ratio, you want the
highest instantaneous peak level of the signal to just barely kiss the MSB.

This recording level has nothing whatever to do with the loudness of the
recording, because the instantaneous peak level can be anywhere from a couple
of dB to 30 dB above the average level of the rest of the music.

"Is that right?"

"Yes. Now the gain control will take you to any level you want."

"I should have thought that with my brain."

"I should have felt it in my heart."

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi DMP-100, nee Sony
PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away discarding three bits. "


You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is, unless this recording was 'in the field'.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi
>> DMP-100, nee Sony PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away
>> discarding three bits. "

> You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
> keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is, unless
> this recording was 'in the field'.

These were field recordings, and of classical music! No compression!

When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording level
to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>"geoff" wrote in message
...
>>On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote
>>
>>>> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
>>>> passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
>>>> 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
>>>> during the actual performance.
>>
>>> That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you notice to
>>> be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.
>>
>>I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.
>>

>My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
>when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
>would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
>something else louder that wasn't forseen.
>--scott

+1. My experience as well, particularly with percussion. When those folks get excited during the performance and
the mallets really fly, they can easily add 6, 9 even 12 dB to what was "played loudest" during the rehearsal.
(Trained voices and brass routinely add 4-6 dB during the excitement of the performance.)

One small saving grace is that slight percussion clips with modern converters are hard to hear, but why risk it
when we have so much headroom these days?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[John Williamson]

On 24/12/2014 22:31, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "I've already gone over the whole thing too many times. At this point I "
>
> No you didn't - else I would have remembered it. All you stated was that VU and digital full scale meters measured different things. That I've already figured out.
>
You seem to have a memory problem. At reasonably short intervals, you
post about metering or another loudness related topic, and the theory
and practice are explained to you. Then, a few days or weeks later, you
post almost exactly same "problem", and it is explained to you again...



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 9:47 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "You again demonstrate you lack of understanding. "
>
> Read my reply to Peter Larsen, mid-thread, and tell me what I "don't understand".
>


"No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since
its inception"

The whole concept of metering and the nature of linear PCM digital
recording, it seems.


geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 10:11 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "geoff" wrote in message
> ...
> On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote
>
>>> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
>>> passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
>>> 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
>>> during the actual performance.
>
>> That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you
>> notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.
>
> I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.


If they play a loud passage, you set a 1dB margin, and in the heat of
performance they go louder again, you've overcooked your 'safety margin".

geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 10:53 a.m., wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
> My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
> when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
> would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
> something else louder that wasn't forseen.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

" Doesnt " they ? Of course they do, or something similar.

>
> Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.
>

A peak reading meter is the ONLY way you can accurately set levels.

It also has nothing to do with replay volume or compression. It simply
makes sure you don't get nastiness from clipping. Do you imagine that
hyper-compression (etc) is something applied at the recording stage ?


geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 11:27 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS.
>> Because when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder
>> than they said it would be in performance, and then add 12dB
>> worth of safety margin for something else louder that wasn't
>> forseen.
>
> It only once went past what I expected -- and only by 1dB.


You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
>On 25/12/2014 10:11 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "geoff" wrote in message
>> ...
>> On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote
>>
>>>> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
>>>> passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
>>>> 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
>>>> during the actual performance.
>>
>>> That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you
>>> notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.
>>
>> I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.
>
>
>If they play a loud passage, you set a 1dB margin, and in the heat of
>performance they go louder again, you've overcooked your 'safety margin".
>
>geoff


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

[PStamler]

Not to change the subject, but many years ago I regularly worked with a TV host who always spoke about 3 dB more quietly when on-air or tape was rolling than he did during the pre-show voice check. Freaked me out the first few times.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

> skrev i en meddelelse
...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

> "Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi
> DMP-100, nee Sony PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away
> discarding three bits. "

With my SV3800 sound would be cleanest if the upper bit was not left unused
and the inaudibility of short clipping relied on, if there actually was some
I unclipped the recording.

With that gamble it gets required to allow for musical genre. Very good
singing wimmen can be trusted when recording, I know of ONE (1) who sings
with so much precision and control that a compressor need not be deployed in
post, the rest of them can be trusted to always have an extra 10 dB of
loudness they come up with with or without relevance in the musical context.

Even then I ran out of downward bits at an avant-garde event. Usually it is
just a pair of eq and stereo tricks to lift musicians commentary and make it
audible in post, but with that recording I couldn't lift those passages as
much as had been relevant, the voice got robotic in character. Not totally
out of place in the musical context, even if purely by natural instruments,
but there also was no real room ambience left.

> You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
> keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is,
> unless this recording was 'in the field'.

Do you read what people post? - William refers to making live recordings.
Also William is into hifi and possibly knows just how much mess a compressor
makes with the sound and what the cost is in clarity.

You can not add clarity, you have to have it and preserve it. Which is why
risking a couple of dB of clipping on the (modded) SV3800 worked to the
recordings advantage. Sadly replacing opamps and capacitor in it was only
about 1/3 the required rebuild O:-) - it actually became OK as long as the
uppermost bit was used, but moving to 24 bit recording was an ambience
revelation.

Take some days off from teaching the populace here to "do sound" and learn
to listen for the sound of single electronic components and the improvements
in clarity that can be gained by minimizing their number. Or borrow a
compressor and try inserting it in the tape monitor loop of your home hifi
and listen for the mess it makes with clarity, perspective and ambience.

You can add anything in post but clarity - that you can only loose and sound
recording and the entire post-processing until release is about loosing as
little as possible.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 24/12/2014 10:13 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 24/12/2014 10:45, wrote:
>> This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in
>> digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it
>> wrought since its inception. ;)
>>
> The purpose of VU meters was to give an indication of levels in a way
> useful when recording on tape, which could safely be overdriven to a
> certain extent without sounding too nasty. The purpose of peak meters is
> to give an accurate indication of the maximum levels going into
> transmitters or a digital chain, where peaks that are even slightly too
> high can give very unpleasant sounding clipping.
>
> If anything, peak metering *prevents* nastiness when recording digitally
> or driving a transmitter, while using VU metering in these cases can
> give rise to clipped peaks unless the engineer leaves a large margin for
> error.
>
> In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
> levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
> it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
> tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.


I disagree, with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide
both VU and peak metering, which tell you different things about your
signal. No need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 25/12/2014 1:22 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/24/2014 1:51 PM, John Williamson wrote:
>> The metering I use has green bars up to a certain point, then yellow,
>> then the top few are red.
>>
>> Green is on the quiet side, yellow is okay, red is dead. It works for
>> me...
>
> What I'd like to see on every digital meter is greater resolution close
> to full scale. All too often the last step on the meter before red is
> -10 dBFS or so. Same goes for digital meters showing analog levels. For
> example, the meter on my Mackie Onyx mixer is stepped like this:
>
> +20 (clip)
> +10
> +7
> +4
> +2
> 0
> with the same steps below 0
>
> So what you have is the rough equivalent of a mechanical VU meter that
> has good resolution around 0, but if you're feeding an A/D converter
> from the mixer that's calibrated so that +20 on the mixer's meter is 0
> dBFS, you have 10 dB of ambiguity between the last indicator before you
> reach clipping. When the +10 LED is on, your record level could be
> anywhere between -10 dBFS or just a hair under 0 dBFS.
>
> While it's good advice to keep the level such that the +10 LED only
> blinks occasionally, try to tell that to someone who wants slamming
> drums, slamming guitars, slamming bass, and slamming vocals.


Firstly what converter/recorder/software are you using that doesn't have
it's own metering, and that you *only* have the Mackie to go by?

Secondly what on earth has the amount of headroom in your recorder got
to do with how "slamming" you can make the drums, bass, guitars, vocals
etc. in the final mix?

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> wrote in message
> ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi
>>> DMP-100, nee Sony PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away
>>> discarding three bits. "

>> You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
>> keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is, unless
>> this recording was 'in the field'.

> These were field recordings, and of classical music! No compression!

> When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording
> level to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

-35 dB peakmetered tends to work for me with a string quartet and
corresponding audience. Just what genre did you record? - was such a rowdy
audience really safe to be in or did you have protection, guards perhaps?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 25/12/2014 8:53 AM, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
> My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
> when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
> would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
> something else louder that wasn't forseen.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.
>
> Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.

For a start you don't get the majority *DO* do it that way these days.
It's usually in post the decisions are made to compress and clip the
hell out of it to maximise the apparent loudness and match what all the
other idiots are doing.

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

>> In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
>> levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
>> it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
>> tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.

> I disagree, with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide both
> VU and peak metering, which tell you different things about your signal.
> No need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

What matters is not what meter, but that the equipment operator knows the
properties of the meter, lead included, and of the programme recorded and
the overload behavior of the system recorded on.

> Trevor

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 25/12/2014 7:14 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>>> In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
>>> levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
>>> it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
>>> tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.
>
>> I disagree, with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide both
>> VU and peak metering, which tell you different things about your signal.
>> No need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.
>
> What matters is not what meter, but that the equipment operator knows the
> properties of the meter, lead included, and of the programme recorded and
> the overload behavior of the system recorded on.

And any operator who knows that, will also know the advantages of both
types of metering and not seek to limit himself when there is no reason
to. But *IF* you are only interested in "overload behavior" the choice
is clear cut these days with digital, simply use peak metering.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

>> When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording level
>> to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

> -35 dB peakmetered tends to work for me with a string quartet and
> corresponding audience. Just what genre did you record? -- was such
> a rowdy audience really safe to be in or did you have protection,
> guards perhaps?

Classical orchestral.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

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

>>> When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording
>>> level to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

>> -35 dB peakmetered tends to work for me with a string quartet and
>> corresponding audience. Just what genre did you record? -- was such
>> a rowdy audience really safe to be in or did you have protection,
>> guards perhaps?

> Classical orchestral.

I'm wondering, also in the context of your peak allowance for the actual
event, are you talking tape recorder meters after dbx?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

> I'm wondering, also in the context of your peak allowance
> for the actual event, are you talking tape recorder meters
> after dbx?

You're confusing my digital recordings with my analog recordings. You don't
use dbx II with digital.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

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

>> I'm wondering, also in the context of your peak allowance
>> for the actual event, are you talking tape recorder meters
>> after dbx?

> You're confusing my digital recordings with my analog recordings. You
> don't use dbx II with digital.

No, I did not give any thought to it though, what was on my mind is thst it
would mostly reconcile the difference in expected audience noise and actual
event headroom. But you could of course have used a mic setup that I
probably would not consider ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 9:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Firstly what converter/recorder/software are you using that doesn't have
> it's own metering, and that you *only* have the Mackie to go by?

None, if you consider a green and a red LED "metering." I suspect that
all DAW programs have metering, but it may not be in a convenient place
to look. In my dreams, I'd like to set gains once and leave them that
way for the rest of the day. Unfortunately festivals aren't very
conducive to that kind of operation. Everything takes full time attention.

> Secondly what on earth has the amount of headroom in your recorder got
> to do with how "slamming" you can make the drums, bass, guitars, vocals
> etc. in the final mix?

The live mix IS the final mix. Why waste time?


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" > writes:

-snips-

>You can add anything in post but clarity - that you can only loose and sound
>recording and the entire post-processing until release is about loosing as
>little as possible.

I think you mean "lose" and "losing", unless things are just kinda rattling around. :) (Caught those because I
make errors like that.)

Actually, in the clarity department, minor miracles can often be had by thoughtful and careful cuts of varying
degrees in the lower octaves - LF and Lo MF dips, varying shapes of high pass, etc. This could be applied to
troublesome tracks or to the entire mix.

Surprisingly, you can often "infer" clarity by adding HF energy -- not in the form of EQ, but rather with HF-heavy
reverb done to taste (and with the appropriate pre-delay).

Finally, a few processing tools can also aid, such as SPL's Vitalizer or Transient Designer. Neither can create
something from nothing, and both are easily overused, but they can help remove at least one layer of murk.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 3:07 AM, geoff wrote:
> A peak reading meter is the ONLY way you can accurately set levels.

What does "accurately set levels" mean to you? How accurate do you want
to be? Do you want to be sure that at some place the level reaches full
scale? Or do you want to be sure that at no place does it ever reach
full scale, at least for content that you want to keep?

I don't consider level setting to be a precise thing that you can (or
should) do with a measurement. It's a thing where a measurement can
guide you in using your good judgment.

Hey, we have to be able to do SOMETHING right for the big bucks that we
make.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 3:12 AM, geoff wrote:
> You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
> really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
> maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.

I always believed that, but then I started reading about mastering
engineers adding a couple of tenths of a dB here and there and made the
client smile.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 8:53 AM, Trevor wrote:
> with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide both VU and
> peak metering, which tell you different things about your signal. No
> need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

I don't always have software based tools at hand when I'm recording. And
I don't always want them. Not all work has a "post" phase, so it's
important to get it as right as possible at the start. This makes any
project, even one where there will be extensive post-recording work,
easier because there are fewer little things that need to be corrected
before fixing the big things.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"


At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a 16 or 24bit level (!)

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 9:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Firstly what converter/recorder/software are you using that doesn't have
> it's own metering, and that you *only* have the Mackie to go by?

I should also add that not all level setting is done at the A/D
converter or via the DAW meters. For example, the meter on the DAW track
that you're recording doesn't tell you if you have the gain set too high
on the preamp in the rack and you're clipping its input or output stage?

Also, on the first couple of generations of handheld digital recorders,
the mic input gain was fixed and the record level adjustment (the effect
of which you can see on the meters) is after that fixed gain stage. If
you just watch the meters, you can be making a very clean digital
recording of a clipped mic preamp. What you learn there is that if you
need to turn the record level down below a certain point in order to
keep the meters from hitting full scale, you'd better switch in the
built-in pad if you're using the internal mics or turn down the output
level of your outboard preamp or mixer that's feeding the recorder.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >"geoff" wrote in message
> ...
> >On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote
> >
> >>> When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the
> >>> loudest passage from the works they were performing, then set the
> >>> level about 1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a
> >>> bit louder during the actual performance.
> >
> >> That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you
> >> notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.
> >
> >I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.
> >
>
> My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS.
> Because when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than
> they said it would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety
> margin for something else louder that wasn't forseen.
> --scott

Back in the days of steam-powered videotape, ABC-TV Labs did some extensive
research on this topic. It was found that, for a wide range of program
material, the highest peak factor was about 16dB above Zero VU. Systems
design recommendations were that the least headroom should be 18dB. To
that, sometimes, was added something called a "crest factor" of 6dB.
Program Amps capable of +24dBm output made this feasible in some
circumstances. Then came Program Amps capable of +30dBm output (1 watt!).
Systems became cleaner and operators grew lazier! Oh well!

The first generation of Pro Tools gave us Zero = only -14dBFS. At the
same time, the -20dBFS was becoming standardized in most digital systems.
Instead of letting us "turn down" 6dB ahead of the recorders, a mindless
manager imposed limiters, even though operators were able to identify and
complain about what it did to their mixes. Again, Oh well!

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[William Sommerwerck]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message ...

> Back in the days of steam-powered videotape, ABC-TV Labs did
> extensive research on this topic. It was found that, for a wide
> range of program material, the highest peak factor was about 16dB
> above Zero VU. Systems design recommendations were that the
> least headroom should be 18dB. To that, sometimes, was added
> something called a "crest factor" of 6dB.

Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
(instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.
Ensembles would tend to have lower crest factors.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Back in the days of steam-powered videotape, ABC-TV Labs did
> > extensive research on this topic. It was found that, for a wide
> > range of program material, the highest peak factor was about 16dB
> > above Zero VU. Systems design recommendations were that the
> > least headroom should be 18dB. To that, sometimes, was added
> > something called a "crest factor" of 6dB.
>
> Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
> (instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.
> Ensembles would tend to have lower crest factors.

I suspect the parlance was incorrect. The 16dB peak factor included what
you describe. Perhaps the extra headroom was in defense of operators who
could not keep a VU meter out of the red, where there is some forgiveness.
Later came Peak Program Meters. The same operators could not keep them out
of the Yellow, where there is much less forgiveness! I classified the two
types as Meter Minders and Pin Pounders.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Bob Quintal]

wrote in
:

> Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to
> compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent
> loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"
>
>
> At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a
> 16 or 24bit level (!)

Only a psychotic would worry about not using every bit of a recorder's
range.



--
Bob Q.
PA is y I've altered my address.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
> ...

>> Back in the days of steam-powered videotape, ABC-TV Labs did
>> extensive research on this topic. It was found that, for a wide
>> range of program material, the highest peak factor was about 16dB
>> above Zero VU. Systems design recommendations were that the
>> least headroom should be 18dB. To that, sometimes, was added
>> something called a "crest factor" of 6dB.

> Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
> (instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.

Not correct, I posted a lot about this some years ago, and some care is
required to get the observed crestfactor to actually be the crest factor of
the instrument observed and not of the recording of the instrument. A
reasonable asumption is that a sane recording of acoustic instruments ends
up around a crest factor of 25 dB.

A recording of a string quartet in a reverberant hall - yes, the hall from
the video of the piano trio I posted a link to some time ago - will have a
crest factor around 27 dB.

Generally it is time to ask questions in case you observe crest factors
below 25 dB in a recording. It may be bass heavy, it may be made with long
microphone to source distance in a reverberant room or it may be clipped or
compressed.

If we are talking single tracks of a classical music recording made with mic
to sound source distance in the 1 to 5 feet range the crest factor to allow
for is 35 dB.

> Ensembles would tend to have lower crest factors.

Your data differ drastically from my observations.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

reposting because my post via astraweb vanished ...

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
> ...

>> Back in the days of steam-powered videotape, ABC-TV Labs did
>> extensive research on this topic. It was found that, for a wide
>> range of program material, the highest peak factor was about 16dB
>> above Zero VU. Systems design recommendations were that the
>> least headroom should be 18dB. To that, sometimes, was added
>> something called a "crest factor" of 6dB.

> Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
> (instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.

Not correct, I posted a lot about this some years ago, and some care is
required to get the observed crestfactor to actually be the crest factor of
the instrument observed and not of the recording of the instrument. A
reasonable asumption is that a sane recording of acoustic instruments ends
up around a crest factor of 25 dB.

A recording of a string quartet in a reverberant hall - yes, the hall from
the video of the piano trio I posted a link to some time ago - will have a
crest factor around 27 dB.

Generally it is time to ask questions in case you observe crest factors
below 25 dB in a recording. It may be bass heavy, it may be made with long
microphone to source distance in a reverberant room or it may be clipped or
compressed.

If we are talking single tracks of a classical music recording made with mic
to sound source distance in the 1 to 5 feet range the crest factor to allow
for is 35 dB.

> Ensembles would tend to have lower crest factors.

Your data differ drastically from my observations.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 25/12/2014 17:29, Bob Quintal wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to
>> compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent
>> loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"
>>
>>
>> At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a
>> 16 or 24bit level (!)
>
> Only a psychotic would worry about not using every bit of a recorder's
> range.
>
>
>
In the early days of digital, when some converters only had an effective
resolution of 14 bits, and poor linearity at low levels, it was more
important than it is now.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/25/2014 3:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>> You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
>> really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
>> maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.
>
> I always believed that, but then I started reading about mastering
> engineers adding a couple of tenths of a dB here and there and made the
> client smile.
>


That might be in the domain of underdressed emperors. Then again, it
takes a heck of a customer to appreciate doing nothing.

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

>> You can add anything in post but clarity - that you can only loose
>> and sound recording and the entire post-processing until release
>> is about loosing as little as possible.

> I think you mean "lose" and "losing", unless things are just kinda
> rattling around. :) (Caught those because I make errors like that.)

Auw. I have erred. After 30 years of usenetting I have posted an actual and
misleading spelling error. About time ... O;-) ... you are quite right,
loose is what happens to the stereo image if the pair is just a wee bit too
distant from the ensemble for the mic setup chosen. But was that a reason
for breaking your omerta?!?`- about the only secret word you haven't used is
the one that start with a B as in Beethoven and they even make an object
called a composer.

> Actually, in the clarity department, minor miracles can often
> be had by thoughtful and careful cuts of varying degrees in the
> lower octaves - LF and Lo MF dips, varying shapes of high pass,
> etc. This could be applied to troublesome tracks or to the
> entire mix.

And these issues are the ones where FFT analysis and a hand-drawn FFT EQ
curve really can do wonders, also because those lower frequency range
oddities often can be assumed to NOT be minimum phase, so the use of a
"phase linear" FFT equalizer to address them is a very context relevant
choice.

> Surprisingly, you can often "infer" clarity by adding HF energy
> -- not in the form of EQ, but rather with HF-heavy
> reverb done to taste (and with the appropriate pre-delay).

Not to worry, hardly anybody has grasped that more pre-delay and less verb
most of the time will be better than less pre-delay and a lot more - AND
THEN SOME - reverb.

> Finally, a few processing tools can also aid, such as SPL's
> Vitalizer or Transient Designer. Neither can create
> something from nothing, and both are easily overused, but
> they can help remove at least one layer of murk.

Like prefab in a kitchen, apply with care, start with doing half of half of
what you think is needed, and tell no-one.

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Oh, you asked for examples of my recordings, I'll post links if/when some
people make them available as they said they would ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 7:25 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >I don't consider level setting to be a precise thing that you can (or
>> >should) do with a measurement. It's a thing where a measurement can
>> >guide you in using your good judgment.

> This was surely the case in the analogue world, but I disagree that it remains
> the case in the digital world where the tonal quality does not change at all
> until you hit clipping, and then it changes a lot.

Where the good judgment comes in is in deciding, once you see the level
that the meters are showing for peaks, whether to leave it there, boost
it a little because you know darn well that it won't get louder than
that, or back it off because you don't know the music and you might be
dozing during a crescendo and not be aware that it's coming.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
>> (instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.

I don't know whether I read this or measured it (on a 'scope).

I'm willing to believe that some instruments have a crest factor of 25dB. But
a flute sure doesn't. Whereas piani and trumpets have spiky waveforms.

Can you point us to a reference?

[Nil[_2_]]

On 25 Dec 2014, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to
> compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent
> loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"
>
>
> At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a
> 16 or 24bit level (!)

If you ever learn to quote in a legible manner you might earn some more
respect.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

>>> Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
>>> (instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.

> I don't know whether I read this or measured it (on a 'scope).

Translates to "I think it is so, and thus claim it as constituting A fact".

> I'm willing to believe that some instruments have a crest factor of 25dB.
> But a flute sure doesn't. Whereas piani and trumpets have spiky waveforms.

> Can you point us to a reference?

Bing found it instantly with the search term "crest factor peter larsen
rec.audio.pro":

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.audio.tech/LlVr_MmQkeg


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Peter Larsen" > skrev i en meddelelse
k...

> "William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...

>>>> Some instruments -- such as piano and trumpet -- have crest factors
>>>> (instantaneous peak to average) of 16dB. This is for a solo instrument.

>> I don't know whether I read this or measured it (on a 'scope).

> Translates to "I think it is so, and thus claim it as constituting A
> fact".

>> I'm willing to believe that some instruments have a crest factor of 25dB.
>> But a flute sure doesn't. Whereas piani and trumpets have spiky
>> waveforms.

>> Can you point us to a reference?

> Bing found it instantly with the search term "crest factor peter larsen
> rec.audio.pro":

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.audio.tech/LlVr_MmQkeg

Oh, and this one too, the data-set is probably three dB off because of a
cool edit odditity explained here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.audio.pro.live-sound/q579MxeVrqg

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Bob Quintal > wrote:

> wrote in
> :
>
> > Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to
> > compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent
> > loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"
> >
> >
> > At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a
> > 16 or 24bit level (!)
>
> Only a psychotic would worry about not using every bit of a recorder's
> range.

Maybe some get paid by the bit. ;-)

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

[geoff]

On 26/12/2014 2:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/25/2014 3:07 AM, geoff wrote:
>> A peak reading meter is the ONLY way you can accurately set levels.
>
> What does "accurately set levels" mean to you? How accurate do you want
> to be? Do you want to be sure that at some place the level reaches full
> scale? Or do you want to be sure that at no place does it ever reach
> full scale, at least for content that you want to keep?


One needs to know that the peak level does not get 0dBFS. Which you
won't achieve with a ballistic-weighted meter.

And if one's policy may be to set peaks at (say) -12dB, then you can set
that with confidence.

geoff

[geoff]

On 26/12/2014 4:14 a.m., wrote:
> Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"
>
>
> At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a 16 or 24bit level (!)
>


In 24 bit it's just not an issue.

Tracking at 16 bit is pretty uncommon for the last 10 years(ish), unless
you are recording on a DAT, DA-88, or older ADAT.

geoff

[geoff]

On 26/12/2014 3:00 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/25/2014 3:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>> You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
>> really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
>> maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.
>
> I always believed that, but then I started reading about mastering
> engineers adding a couple of tenths of a dB here and there and made the
> client smile.
>


...... and the ones who did nothing at all, said they did, and made the
clients smile.


geoff

[John Williamson]

On 26/12/2014 09:04, geoff wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 3:00 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 12/25/2014 3:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
>>> really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
>>> maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.
>>
>> I always believed that, but then I started reading about mastering
>> engineers adding a couple of tenths of a dB here and there and made the
>> client smile.
>>
>
>
> ..... and the ones who did nothing at all, said they did, and made the
> clients smile.
>

Who was it that had a dummy knob on the desk for the client to adjust stuff?

Apparently, it caused smiles to break out all round when it was turned.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/26/2014 10:02 AM, geoff wrote:
> In 24 bit it's just not an issue.

It could be, depending on where you can turn the level down to stay
within your margin of choice. If you have a very clean signal going into
a 24-bit A/D converter, you can bring peaks up to full scale without any
significant damage. But if the only knob you have available to reduce
the record level is the input gain of you could be compromising the S/N
ratio right at the front. And when you add 10 dB to the recording to get
the peaks where the client wants them, you'll be amplifying the preamp
noise.

This may only be a theoretical problem, but it's not good to ignore any
part of the system when choosing a record level.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"John Williamson" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> Who was it that had a dummy knob on the desk for the client
> to adjust stuff?

> Apparently, it caused smiles to break out all round when it
> was turned.

Ah, you have never adjusted a reverb in bypass mode until it was just right?

> John

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

One word: eBay.

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...

With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less expensive
way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a
stereo program buss?

http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ

I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 26/12/2014 2:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 12/25/2014 3:07 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> A peak reading meter is the ONLY way you can accurately set levels.
>>
>> What does "accurately set levels" mean to you? How accurate do you want
>> to be? Do you want to be sure that at some place the level reaches full
>> scale? Or do you want to be sure that at no place does it ever reach
>> full scale, at least for content that you want to keep?
>
>One needs to know that the peak level does not get 0dBFS. Which you
>won't achieve with a ballistic-weighted meter.

It can be! In the early digital days when we did not have budget for
full and accurate digital metering, I used an analogue meter with a peak
reading circuit driving it; the ballistics were such that it took some time
to reach the correct reading but the peak hold circuit driving it kept that
reading going to the meter for much longer.

I would, of course, not recommend such metering today. If you look at some
late 1980s postings from this newsgroup you can probably see Gabe Weiner
arguing that my arrangement was insufficiently accurate. However, all the
recordings I have from back then have the levels spot on.

>And if one's policy may be to set peaks at (say) -12dB, then you can set
>that with confidence.

What is your meter measuring? If it's designed to measure peaks, that is
one thing. If it is designed to measure something else, that is great, but
if so it's not of much use to measure peaks.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Tracking at 16 bit is pretty uncommon for the last 10 years(ish), unless
>you are recording on a DAT, DA-88, or older ADAT.

I'm still frequently tracking to 16 bit, but I am actually tracking to real
16 bits with all the bits being good and valid. And the room noise floor is
still more of an issue than the converter noise or linearity.

Contrast that with the SV3700 of the eighties where if you were getting any
more than 12 valid signal-correlated monotonic bits I will eat my hat.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>
>With my SV3800 sound would be cleanest if the upper bit was not left unused
>and the inaudibility of short clipping relied on, if there actually was some
>I unclipped the recording.

Which is horrible, but it was the nature of the SV3800. Those machines were
a good example of every possible way to screw up a converter design. They
sounded appreciably better at 48 ksamp/sec rather than 44.1, which led a lot
of people to surmise about audibility of utrasonics. In fact, the issues
were that the same anti-aliasing filter constants were used at both rates.

That's on top of the terrible converter linearity and the nonstandard I/O.
Panasonic used to send people to the AES standards committee meeting and
try to convince people to change the spec rather than fix their interfaces.

>With that gamble it gets required to allow for musical genre. Very good
>singing wimmen can be trusted when recording, I know of ONE (1) who sings
>with so much precision and control that a compressor need not be deployed in
>post, the rest of them can be trusted to always have an extra 10 dB of
>loudness they come up with with or without relevance in the musical context.
>
>Even then I ran out of downward bits at an avant-garde event. Usually it is
>just a pair of eq and stereo tricks to lift musicians commentary and make it
>audible in post, but with that recording I couldn't lift those passages as
>much as had been relevant, the voice got robotic in character. Not totally
>out of place in the musical context, even if purely by natural instruments,
>but there also was no real room ambience left.

With the SV3700 this happens only 40dB down. Mind you, if you'd been running
a 1/4" 2-track machine the noise would have been building up at that point
too.

>> You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
>> keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is,
>> unless this recording was 'in the field'.
>
>Do you read what people post? - William refers to making live recordings.
>Also William is into hifi and possibly knows just how much mess a compressor
>makes with the sound and what the cost is in clarity.

Actually, a safety limiter can be a real help in this kind of situation. You
don't hit the limiter very often... you don't hit it ever if you can avoid it.
But it's better to hit the limiter than hit the digital brickwall. Pretty
much all the portable recorders intended for film work had some sort of
mildly inoffensive safety limiter that could be enabled if needed.

>You can not add clarity, you have to have it and preserve it. Which is why
>risking a couple of dB of clipping on the (modded) SV3800 worked to the
>recordings advantage. Sadly replacing opamps and capacitor in it was only
>about 1/3 the required rebuild O:-) - it actually became OK as long as the
>uppermost bit was used, but moving to 24 bit recording was an ambience
>revelation.

To be honest you could just have thrown a Symetrix 620 in front of that 3800
and been surprisingly happy. Moving to real 16 bit recording would have been
an ambience revelation!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/22/2014 5:01 PM, PStamler wrote:
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 2:54:54 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> mcp6453 > wrote:
>>> With all due respect to Coleman Audio, can someone suggest a less expensive way to find a pair of analog VU meters for a
>>> stereo program buss?
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/6mWuGZ
>>>
>>> I don't even see how big the meters are. Maybe I have to roll my own.
>>
>> There really aren't many. The Dorrough is even more money. You can
>> find surplus meters and add resistors and metalwork yourself.
>>
>> I think Simpson will still sell you a real VU meter movement for $250.
>> --scott
>
> Which means you're probably better off cannibalizing them from someplace.
>
> Two other possibilities: National Semiconductor, in their datasheets for the LED-array drivers which power a lot of peak-reaing meters, gave a circuit which supposedly emulated BU meter ballistics. I have no idea how well it worked.
>
> And Heathkit claimed that the meter on their Audio Analyzer (an SMPTE IM meter) had true-VU ballistics. I've found it useful as a good stand-in. Of course, for stereo you'd need two of them -- plus a way to line up your 0 VU point to the boxes'.

As much as I hate LED VU meters, this one looks great. Unfortunately, the guy who made it is MIA from YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P1fNMrfxMo

This one looks nice, but these guys are in Canada, and they insist on charging $25 to ship this tiny kit to the US. Even
then, you have to find a way to mount it in a case or behind a panel.

http://www.augustica.com/dejavu-c-17_18/vupeak-meter-dejavu-p-8

It looks like the Augustica guys may have gotten the design from this guy in CZ:

http://s-o.webnode.cz/vu-metr/

I may try to order some from him, if I can figure out how.

[John Williamson]

On 26/12/2014 18:31, mcp6453 wrote:
> On 12/22/2014 5:01 PM, PStamler wrote:
>> And Heathkit claimed that the meter on their Audio Analyzer (an SMPTE IM meter) had true-VU ballistics. I've found it useful as a good stand-in. Of course, for stereo you'd need two of them -- plus a way to line up your 0 VU point to the boxes'.
>
> As much as I hate LED VU meters, this one looks great. Unfortunately, the guy who made it is MIA from YouTube.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P1fNMrfxMo
>
> This one looks nice, but these guys are in Canada, and they insist on charging $25 to ship this tiny kit to the US. Even
> then, you have to find a way to mount it in a case or behind a panel.
>
> http://www.augustica.com/dejavu-c-17_18/vupeak-meter-dejavu-p-8
>
> It looks like the Augustica guys may have gotten the design from this guy in CZ:
>
> http://s-o.webnode.cz/vu-metr/
>
> I may try to order some from him, if I can figure out how.
>
You don't need to. There's a circuit diagram and a link to the PIC
program on the page.

There's even a PCB layout.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Bob Quintal wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to
>> compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent
>> loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"
>>
>>
>> At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a
>> 16 or 24bit level (!)
>
> Only a psychotic would worry about not using every bit of a recorder's
> range.
>
>
>

Maybe they run their car at redline all the time.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> On 26/12/2014 4:14 a.m., wrote:
>> Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to compress
>> and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent loudness and
>> match what all the other idiots are doing"
>>
>>
>> At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a 16
>> or 24bit level (!)
>>
>
>
> In 24 bit it's just not an issue.
>
> Tracking at 16 bit is pretty uncommon for the last 10 years(ish), unless
> you are recording on a DAT, DA-88, or older ADAT.
>
> geoff

It was possible to buy 16 bit gear 10 years ago, and a lot of that still
works.


--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 26/12/2014 11:51 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/26/2014 10:02 AM, geoff wrote:
>> In 24 bit it's just not an issue.
>
> It could be, depending on where you can turn the level down to stay
> within your margin of choice. If you have a very clean signal going into
> a 24-bit A/D converter, you can bring peaks up to full scale without any
> significant damage. But if the only knob you have available to reduce
> the record level is the input gain of you could be compromising the S/N
> ratio right at the front. And when you add 10 dB to the recording to get
> the peaks where the client wants them, you'll be amplifying the preamp
> noise.
>
> This may only be a theoretical problem, but it's not good to ignore any
> part of the system when choosing a record level.
>


..... assuming a 'sensible' margin here.

geoff

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 12/26/2014 10:02 AM, geoff wrote:
> > In 24 bit it's just not an issue.
>
> It could be, depending on where you can turn the level down to stay
> within your margin of choice. If you have a very clean signal going into
> a 24-bit A/D converter, you can bring peaks up to full scale without any
> significant damage. But if the only knob you have available to reduce
> the record level is the input gain of you could be compromising the S/N
> ratio right at the front. And when you add 10 dB to the recording to get
> the peaks where the client wants them, you'll be amplifying the preamp
> noise.
>
> This may only be a theoretical problem, but it's not good to ignore any
> part of the system when choosing a record level.

There is no such thing as a "theoretical problem" where a human operator
will be involved. We start with an actual problem, the operator, the
parameters for which will be, as we say, all over the map. If you have
just imagined any problem derived either from design limitations or
erroneous settings made by a knob twister, that problem is no longer
theoretical. It can happen, therefore it will.

There is no substitute for a qualified operator. (May apply to
composers, too. ;-)

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