DVD mix ideas

[jazzman31[_2_]]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but here goes. I see a growing trend with music tracks in movies; whether cinema, dvd, streamed, etc. Usually, it's a lame piece of fluff meant to convey some meaning or other while there is no script for the duration, just various location shots and movement. Do these tracks_need_to be so compressed (mastered maybe) or is it just the composers obsession with the bus plugs, getting their tracks louder than everything else? At home, it's like I need a 20 db mute button on the remote. Having said that, I wonder if the sound mixer pulled back the tracks to a "sensible" level, would we then hear a heavily compressed mix, just turned down? Where are the dynamics here? I'm sure most of you have come across this before with the "loudness wars". I got to say, when good taste prevails, so do dynamics.

-rick hollett

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:07:08 PM UTC-5, jazzman31 wrote:
> Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but here goes. I see a growing trend with music tracks in movies; whether cinema, dvd, streamed, etc. Usually, it's a lame piece of fluff meant to convey some meaning or other while there is no script for the duration, just various location shots and movement. Do these tracks_need_to be so compressed (mastered maybe) or is it just the composers obsession with the bus plugs, getting their tracks louder than everything else? At home, it's like I need a 20 db mute button on the remote. Having said that, I wonder if the sound mixer pulled back the tracks to a "sensible" level, would we then hear a heavily compressed mix, just turned down? Where are the dynamics here? I'm sure most of you have come across this before with the "loudness wars". I got to say, when good taste prevails, so do dynamics.
>
> -rick hollett

May I comment?....

Let's forget Loudness Wars for a second. Let's just talk overall sound quality...

"Sorry, I dont mean to be rude, but you must understand that in the context of the world outside Gearslutz, the difference between a 160 kbps Mp3 on up and a CD would be considered extremely geeky. Most people would not be able to hear it at all, and even engineers will have to squint to hear the difference. From 320 Kbps Im pretty sure most engineers wouldnt know it was an mp3. Unless you told them it was, of course, after which they would start wanking on about how hollow, empty and souless it sounds".

I was challenged right here with a Flac file against my 160 kbps MP3. My opposition's I could hear tape his noise, something I frown at.

I put a stereo song on my site, and a visitor mentioned it's fake stereo (I know it isn't, remixed from session tapes). So he sent me his favorite rendition and it swapped stereo channels, and, again, had noticeable tape hiss noise. So, to put it simply, very few care about SOUND QUALITY.

Actually, a participant here mentioned "Girl Watcher" by The O'Kasions sounded better on a Dick Clark CD compilation (than I posted). As usual, I give others a chance, I'm always open to one with better hearing and recognition, but I was disappointed once again.

Re:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/391664-people-dont-care-about-sound-quality-anymore.html

Jack

[geoff]

On 13/01/2016 12:06 p.m., jazzman31 wrote:
> Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but here goes. I see a growing trend with music tracks in movies; whether cinema, dvd, streamed, etc. Usually, it's a lame piece of fluff meant to convey some meaning or other while there is no script for the duration, just various location shots and movement. Do these tracks_need_to be so compressed (mastered maybe) or is it just the composers obsession with the bus plugs, getting their tracks louder than everything else? At home, it's like I need a 20 db mute button on the remote. Having said that, I wonder if the sound mixer pulled back the tracks to a "sensible" level, would we then hear a heavily compressed mix, just turned down? Where are the dynamics here? I'm sure most of you have come across this before with the "loudness wars". I got to say, when good taste prevails, so do dynamics.
>
> -rick hollett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc9sQoxPxAg

geoff

[[email protected]]

jazzman31:

Do not.

Under any circumstances.

Bring up the Loudness War or lack of dynamic range in
this newsgroup, rec.audio.pro. The vast majority of
participants here have long since washed their hands
of those issues and do not want to hear about it. Some
here are involved in the engineering of the commercial
product you hear on internet and terrestrial radio, at the
recording, mixing, and/or mastering stages. They must
turn out sonic crap, even if they do not like to, in order
to survive.

If you want to rant, as I have, about the loudness and
lack of dynamic range in modern commercial music,
take it up with the record labels, and the producers of
the artists themselves. But not here. Not on rec.audio.
pro.

[None]

< lil-krissie-theckma @ dumb****sRtheckma.shrortbus.edu > took a huge
dump:
> <huge dump flushed>

There you are, li'l buddy! Nice of you to come back here flailing away
impotently at the rotted corpse of your dead hobby horses, of corpse
of course. You'll never learn. And I mean that in the most general
way, as the story of your life. Now put on your galoshes and your
hockey helmet. The short bus will be here soon to take you to the
school for retarded dumb****s.

I'm giving you the response that you crave. When you're ignored you
**** your pants and throw tantrums and start posting about your
fondness for licking toilets. So I give you a little attention; it's
why you're here, obviously. And if you keep demanding that I insult
you with the truths you're too stupid to understand, I'll keep giving
you the insults that you like so much.

And by the way, since it didn't sink in to that pile of steaming horse
**** in your skull the last thousand times you've been told, you're
not the moderator here. If there were a moderator, he would have
banned your sorry retarded ass long ago. And stop licking the toilet,
dumb****.

[[email protected]]

jazzman31: This is what you will be subjected to
for bringing up trade secrets:

"....And by the way, since it didn't sink in to that pile of steaming horse
**** in your skull the last thousand times you've been told, you're
not the moderator here. If there were a moderator, he would have
banned your sorry retarded ass long ago. And stop licking the toilet,
dumb****. "

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2016 13:07, wrote:
> jazzman31: This is what you will be subjected to
> for bringing up trade secrets:
>
> "....And by the way, since it didn't sink in to that pile of steaming horse
> **** in your skull the last thousand times you've been told, you're
> not the moderator here. If there were a moderator, he would have
> banned your sorry retarded ass long ago. And stop licking the toilet,
> dumb****. "
>
>
There are *no* trade secrets in audio production. There are tools which
are used, and are well known to all audio production people. Good sound
is produced by people who use those tools well, and bad sound is
produced by people who do not use them well. It is possible to produce
an excellent recording of certain things using a single recorder about
the size of a packet of cigarettes to record it and a netbook to edit
it, as long as you have a good playback system for monitoring. It is
also possible to produce a terrible recording using an array of
fantastic microphones in a good studio or hall and a large editing
console if the ears listening to the final mix aren't any good.

The most important thing about getting excellent music and drama is
choosing the right performers, and, on some live albums I've heard, the
right audience.

Thekma, your obsession with overcompressed modern music is not in
accordance with what the client now wants to hear at the end of the
production process.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:21:54 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 13/01/2016 13:07, wrote:
> > jazzman31: This is what you will be subjected to
> > for bringing up trade secrets:
> >


Here's my trade secret.

Have the widom to know the things you can do something about vs those you don't.

And you can do something about dynamic range that YOU listen to.

Buy yourself a dolby dynamic range expander, hook it up to your system and enjoy it.

Or even better, invent a better expander, go on shark tank and become a millionare.

M

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Thekma, your obsession with overcompressed modern music is not..."

Jeez John, you and suitcase-face make it like I'm the
only person in the solar system "obsessed" with this
trend. Well I'm not.

Google/Yahoo is your friend.

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2016 14:32, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "Thekma, your obsession with overcompressed modern music is not..."
>
> Jeez John, you and suitcase-face make it like I'm the
> only person in the solar system "obsessed" with this
> trend. Well I'm not.
>
You're the only one in here repeatedly trying to convince the wrong
people that it's a bad idea.

Generally, we do what's requested by the client, and if the client wants
extremely compressed audio, that's what the client gets. If we refuse to
give them what they want, they go somewhere else, and our families don't
eat.

What we want to produce is the best possible sound quality in line with
the clients' requirements.

If what you want is not that, then don't buy it, and if you've got
enough support for your policy, then the media producers and
commissioners will start producing what you want. In the meantime, go to
live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:57:33 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 13/01/2016 14:32, wrote:
> > John Williamson wrote: "Thekma, your obsession with overcompressed modern music is not..."
> >
> > Jeez John, you and suitcase-face make it like I'm the
> > only person in the solar system "obsessed" with this
> > trend. Well I'm not.
> >
> You're the only one in here repeatedly trying to convince the wrong
> people that it's a bad idea.
>
> Generally, we do what's requested by the client, and if the client wants
> extremely compressed audio, that's what the client gets. If we refuse to
> give them what they want, they go somewhere else, and our families don't
> eat.

SO, YOU WORRY MORE ABOUT MONEY THAN QUALITY? Self pride? Reputation? Consideration?
So, another possible client sees "Master by John Williamson", and wonders why the foul sound and decides to go elsewhere. Your win or loos?

Just my two cents.

Jack


>
> What we want to produce is the best possible sound quality in line with
> the clients' requirements.
>
> If what you want is not that, then don't buy it, and if you've got
> enough support for your policy, then the media producers and
> commissioners will start producing what you want. In the meantime, go to
> live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
> all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote:
"live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
- show quoted text -"

You're kidding, right? Ever been near
the FOH rack at a concert? Sure looked
like compressors to me!

[John Williamson]

On 13/01/2016 20:00, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> "live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
> all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> You're kidding, right? Ever been near
> the FOH rack at a concert? Sure looked
> like compressors to me!
>
"Depending on the material" I've yet to see a compressor at a decent
symphony concert or an acoustic folk gig.

Compression, whether you like it or not, is an integral part of pop
music of all types, and even if you don't see the gear, it will be used
for things like feedback control or to help the vocals cut through. If
it's used right, you won't even know it's there.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 14/01/2016 3:57 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
> You're the only one in here repeatedly trying to convince the wrong
> people that it's a bad idea.
>
> Generally, we do what's requested by the client, and if the client
> wants extremely compressed audio, that's what the client gets. If we
> refuse to give them what they want, they go somewhere else, and our
> families don't eat.
>
> What we want to produce is the best possible sound quality in line
> with the clients' requirements.
>
> If what you want is not that, then don't buy it, and if you've got
> enough support for your policy, then the media producers and
> commissioners will start producing what you want. In the meantime, go
> to live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed
> at all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
>
>


Suggest thekma that you concentrate your efforts on educating the
ARTISTS and LABELS who demand this,. Then once that hurdle is cleared we
will all be happy, because (in case you haven't noticed) pretty much
everybody here loathes routinely over-compressed music.

But that doesn't fit with your conspiracy-theory.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>John Williamson wrote:
>"live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
>all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
>- show quoted text -"

>You're kidding, right? Ever been near
>the FOH rack at a concert? Sure looked
>like compressors to me!

A frequent problem with many live events is the lack of use of judicial compression.
Close-mic'd instruments and voices have an exaggerated dynamic range from those
close mics, and will jump out of the mix, often pushing compression drivers and/or
mid-fi power amps into non-linearity, better known as ear-shredding PA distortion.

If you properly set up live compression you (a) zero out that dynamic exaggeration
from close mics, (b) prevent people slapping their hands against their ears when the
system spikes into high distortion and (c) make it all seem real and sweet as a
singer goes very loud and can carry the room acoustically (or nearly so). The
compressor is going into fairly high GR at those triple forte moments, and the house
sound is then "seasoned" with the acoustic sound of the voice.

This requires careful setting of ratio, knee, attack, and release, along with some
astute gain-riding, but it can be done. (Of course, this won't work as well with
most rock/pop or in a huge house but for general reinforcement or musical theater in
a medium-to-smaller house, such compression can yield an excellent sound.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "....to help the vocals cut through. If
it's used right, you won't even know it's there.
- show quoted text -"

Which was largely the case - until the mid-1990s. After
that, combined with make up gain, it became a volume
control - at least on the recording side, for albums.

[None]

< thekma @ retardsRtheckma.hh> wrote in message
...
> jazzman31: This is what you will be subjected to
> for bringing up trade secrets:

I think jazzman31 and anyone else can notice that most of the people
in this newsgroup can discuss the pros and cons of compression quite
rationally, and with a great deal of expertise. It's only one retarded
dumb**** (that's you, Theckma), who turns any such discussion into a
series of diatribes about your abject ignorance, your obsessions with
your pathetic hobby horses, and your cretinous conspiracy theories
about non-existent trade secrets.

You really should do a better job of wiping your asshole after making
such posts; the stench is even overpowering the fly-infested rotting
carrion corpse of your hobbyhorse.

[None]

< thekma @ omnibus-brevis.edu > wrote in message
...
> John Williamson wrote: "Thekma, your obsession with overcompressed
> modern music is not..."
>
> Jeez John, you and suitcase-face make it like I'm the
> only person in the solar system "obsessed" with this
> trend. Well I'm not.

In addition to your obsession about compression issues that you don't
understand, you seem obsessed with suitcases. What happened, did your
Momma used to beat you upside the head with a suitcase? Is that why
you're retarded?


..

[None]

< theckma @ omnibus-brevis.cc.edu> wrote in message
...
> John Williamson wrote:
> "live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed
> at
> all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> You're kidding, right? Ever been near
> the FOH rack at a concert? Sure looked
> like compressors to me!

You're kidding, right? Ever bothered to read, for instance the words
"depending on material", before you take your foot out of your asshole
and stick it in your mouth? You don't even know what a compressor
looks like, unlike pretty much everyone else here. Once again, you
pretend you can school the pros, when in fact, you can't even read.
They didn't cover that in your eight years at your two-year community
college.

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>A frequent problem with many live events is the lack of use of judicial compression.
>Close-mic'd instruments and voices have an exaggerated dynamic range from those
>close mics, and will jump out of the mix, often pushing compression drivers and/or
>mid-fi power amps into non-linearity, better known as ear-shredding PA distortion.

This is absolutely true, and a little compression can help make things far
better. Another thing that can help, though, is pulling microphones back,
and far too little of that is done these days. Too many PA people have been
trained in a high volume rock world where everything has to be sacrificed
for improved gain before feedback, and when dealing with acoustic music with
a good system and a good hall those sacrifices just aren't needed anymore.
--scott

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

[Trevor]

On 14/01/2016 12:21 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> Thekma, your obsession with overcompressed modern music is not in
> accordance with what the client now wants to hear at the end of the
> production process.

Not entirely true. Only if you consider the "client" to be the producer
or perhaps A&R rep. Many people however buy music of artists they like
*despite* the sound quality not being what they prefer. Unfortunately
the only choice they have is take it or leave it. Others much further up
the production chain have already made the decisions of how it will sound.
I have personally remastered as best I can some of the CD's that I like
the artist, but not he terrible decisions made in production. Every time
a remastered edition of any old music comes out, there are always some
who like one, and some who like another. Proves there is never "one"
correct way to do it that suits every listener.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/01/2016 1:57 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> If what you want is not that, then don't buy it, and if you've got
> enough support for your policy, then the media producers and
> commissioners will start producing what you want.

Yeah, but how many say to themselves, "I love the artist, I love the
music, but I won't buy it because I don't like the way it's compressed.
I'll wait for a change before I buy any more CD's"? None is my guess
because they'd probably be waiting forever.

>
> In the meantime, go to
> live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
> all,and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.

So only acoustic concerts then. Combined with buying no CD's, that's
going to limit your music enjoyment quite a lot, unless you only like
classical music I guess. Too bad if you actually like pop music which I
think is what Thekma is always on about.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 14/01/2016 3:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>
>> A frequent problem with many live events is the lack of use of judicial compression.
>> Close-mic'd instruments and voices have an exaggerated dynamic range from those
>> close mics, and will jump out of the mix, often pushing compression drivers and/or
>> mid-fi power amps into non-linearity, better known as ear-shredding PA distortion.
>
> This is absolutely true, and a little compression can help make things far
> better. Another thing that can help, though, is pulling microphones back,
> and far too little of that is done these days. Too many PA people have been
> trained in a high volume rock world where everything has to be sacrificed
> for improved gain before feedback, and when dealing with acoustic music with
> a good system and a good hall those sacrifices just aren't needed anymore.

But unfortunately they are as often as not. A good sound engineer can
soon tell when they aren't though. Unfortunately many only know one
volume level, all red leds must be lit, so those sacrifices will always
be necessary. And of course there are times you drop the FOH level and
the artist wants more foldback, ad infinitum until you only have
foldback, no FOH, the sound is still too loud, and now just a dreadful
reflection from back of stage, and even more prone to feedback. Just
wish those artists would do themselves a favour and buy IEM's or a
hearing aid. :-)

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 14/01/2016 00:39, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "....to help the vocals cut through. If
> it's used right, you won't even know it's there.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Which was largely the case - until the mid-1990s. After
> that, combined with make up gain, it became a volume
> control - at least on the recording side, for albums.
>
You just don't get it, do you. I was recommending that you actually go
and listen to live music if you want to hear the full dynamic range.

We all know about recording and the loudness wars in the charts, which,
at least on this side of the Atlantic are diminishing, if only slightly

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 14/01/2016 05:47, Trevor wrote:
> On 14/01/2016 1:57 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>> If what you want is not that, then don't buy it, and if you've got
>> enough support for your policy, then the media producers and
>> commissioners will start producing what you want.
>
> Yeah, but how many say to themselves, "I love the artist, I love the
> music, but I won't buy it because I don't like the way it's compressed.
> I'll wait for a change before I buy any more CD's"? None is my guess
> because they'd probably be waiting forever.
>
True. He could always try using an expander, though.
> >
>> In the meantime, go to
>> live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
>> all,and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
>
> So only acoustic concerts then. Combined with buying no CD's, that's
> going to limit your music enjoyment quite a lot, unless you only like
> classical music I guess. Too bad if you actually like pop music which I
> think is what Thekma is always on about.
>
I do, and I accept the compression as part of the performance. When the
steady drone gets too boring, I turn it off or listen to some classical
or acoustic recordings. Or some early pop that I've copied to digital
from the original vinyl. It's compressed, but in a different way with,
generally, a more pleasing sound, but it was deliberately selected.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 14/01/2016 7:21 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 14/01/2016 05:47, Trevor wrote:
>> On 14/01/2016 1:57 AM, John Williamson wrote:
>>> If what you want is not that, then don't buy it, and if you've got
>>> enough support for your policy, then the media producers and
>>> commissioners will start producing what you want.
>>
>> Yeah, but how many say to themselves, "I love the artist, I love the
>> music, but I won't buy it because I don't like the way it's compressed.
>> I'll wait for a change before I buy any more CD's"? None is my guess
>> because they'd probably be waiting forever.
>>
> True. He could always try using an expander, though.

Won't help much. It's the amount of clipping that annoys me most, and
even declippers can only guess.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "You just don't get it, do you. I was recommending that you actually go
and listen to live music if you want to hear the full dynamic range. "


What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.


I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
on those.


I can see what dealing with most of the regulars on r.a.p. is
like: A room fully of lying and double-talking Cheneys and
Rumsfelds with their "known unknowns".

[John Williamson]

On 14/01/2016 11:06, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "You just don't get it, do you. I was recommending that you actually go
> and listen to live music if you want to hear the full dynamic range. "
>
>
> What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
> concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
> THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.
>
I've seen them, too, but I didn't claim that no compression was ever
used at any concert. I do, however, know of one (locally) very well
liked pop band that don't use compression live, where I had to use
compression in the production of the CD to tame the vocals slightly.
>
> I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
> and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
> next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
> a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
> on those.
>
Which is why I wrote "Depending on the material".

Try going to a classical or any other acoustic concert sometime, you
might be surprised how good they sound, and how much emotional content
there is in the music.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

< theKKKKKKKKma @ village-idiot.duh, the retarded dumb**** > defecated
in message
...
> John Williamson wrote: "You just don't get it, do you. I was
> recommending that you actually go
> and listen to live music if you want to hear the full dynamic range.
> "
>
> What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
> concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
> THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.

Do you ever listen to music, li'l buddy? With your ears, I mean. We
all know that you hate the way compression looks on your computer
screen, and now it's clear that you hate seeing compressors in a FOH
rack (if we pretend that you know what a compressor looks like). But
do you ever listen?

And how many times does "depending on the material" have to be
repeated before it's obvious that you can't and won't read, because
you're a career dumb****? I was going to ask how many times it had to
be repeated before you get it, but then I caught myself. You'll never
get it, because you're a cretin.

> I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys

Do you ever go to grown-up concerts? Most everyone here can listen to
music that's not over-compressed. But you, being a blockheaded cretin,
can't seem to find any music with nice dynamic range. Why? Are you
just too stupid? Of course you are!

> I can see what dealing with most of the regulars on r.a.p. is
> like: A room fully of lying and double-talking Cheneys and
> Rumsfelds with their "known unknowns".

Everyone on RAP can see that they're dealing with a whining little
bitch with the intellect of a gopher, and the personality of gopher
****. That would be you, li'l KKKKKrissie dumbucKKKKKKK.

[david gourley[_2_]]

said...news:f2b2d602-0b62-4340-956a-
:

> John Williamson wrote: "You just don't get it, do you. I was recommending
that you actually go
> and listen to live music if you want to hear the full dynamic range. "
>
>
> What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
> concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
> THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.

He didn't say that, but he did say 'depending on material.' Did you happen
to chat with any FOH mixers and ask how they were specifically using
said compressors? Maybe some were combination units that were being used
as gates instead. All you have to do is ask.

>
>
> I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
> and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
> next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
> a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
> on those.

Were there any parts of the performances that you didn't like and could
point out that 'compressors in the processor racks' were directly
responsible? Again, you should talk with some FOH and monitor mixers.
You can express your concerns and have a chance to be more informed on how
compression is being used in a live setting.


>
>
> I can see what dealing with most of the regulars on r.a.p. is
> like: A room fully of lying and double-talking Cheneys and
> Rumsfelds with their "known unknowns".

Thanks for the heads-up. I had no idea they were into pro audio.

david

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:39:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "....to help the vocals cut through. If
> it's used right, you won't even know it's there.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Which was largely the case - until the mid-1990s. After
> that, combined with make up gain, it became a volume
> control - at least on the recording side, for albums.

Blame it ALL on DAW. If DAW didn't exist, no Loudness Wars.

Jack

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 3:35:50 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 13/01/2016 20:00, wrote:
> > John Williamson wrote:
> > "live concerts, which are, depending on the material, not compressed at
> > all, and as a bonus sound just like the real thing.
> > - show quoted text -"
> >
> > You're kidding, right? Ever been near
> > the FOH rack at a concert? Sure looked
> > like compressors to me!
> >
> "Depending on the material" I've yet to see a compressor at a decent
> symphony concert or an acoustic folk gig.
>
> Compression, whether you like it or not, is an integral part of pop
> music of all types, and even if you don't see the gear, it will be used
> for things like feedback control or to help the vocals cut through. If
> it's used right, you won't even know it's there.

I heard it on "Pop" 45s before the digital age.

Don't feel Big Bands required compression, so "Pop" music didn't always incorporta4e it.

I used the term "Peak Limiting" or "Dynamic Alteration", rather then "Compression". People, like Trump says, don't have a clue! Why THEIR loudness can always be seen. People, back in the analog days, didn't have oscilloscopes hook to the audio systems, so they couldn't see the damage!!

Jack
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[geoff]

On 15/01/2016 12:06 a.m., wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "You just don't get it, do you. I was recommending that you actually go
> and listen to live music if you want to hear the full dynamic range. "
>
>
> What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
> concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
> THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.
>
>
> I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
> and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
> next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
> a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
> on those.


I'd be very surprised if you saw a compressor in a rack at a classical
or purely acoustic jazz show. Or a PA system.

geoff

[geoff]

On 15/01/2016 9:07 a.m., JackA wrote:
> 'Blame it ALL on DAW. If DAW didn't exist, no Loudness Wars."

then

> "I heard it on "Pop" 45s before the digital age."
> Don't feel Big Bands required compression, so "Pop" music didn't always incorporta4e it.


Make up your mind. Such as it is ....


geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:10:17 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 15/01/2016 9:07 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > 'Blame it ALL on DAW. If DAW didn't exist, no Loudness Wars."
>
> then
>
> > "I heard it on "Pop" 45s before the digital age."
> > Don't feel Big Bands required compression, so "Pop" music didn't always incorporta4e it.
>
>
> Make up your mind. Such as it is ....

The more amateurish Pop was poorly recorded, so compression it to success.
So, yes, Rock brought us compression. Teen kids were only hooked on it, and they didn't care about sound quality.

Jack
>
>
> geoff

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Blame it ALL on DAW. If DAW didn't exist, no Loudness Wars."


The quest for loudness has been around as long as man has
figured out how to make a recording of something. Just as have
bombs that could be dropped out of planes and the planes
themselves.


You could draw a parallel between the arrival of digital audio
and the DAW in the recording business, and the advent of the
atomic bomb in aerial warfare. After the mid-90s, you could
say the loudness war truly went nuclear! It's the same loudness
race it's always been, just now far more potent and damaging
to sound in the last 20 years.

[[email protected]]

"Do you ever go to grown-up concerts? Most everyone here can listen to music that's
not overcompressed"


So groups like Kansas, Beach Boys, and Kool & The
Gang are for kids huh? And I never considered any of
their works, in concert or as ORIGINALLY released on
vinyl or CD, to be excessively processed. Remasters
of those groups' efforts, on the other hand, leave me
less than as impressed as I was by the originals.


I'm a musical 99-percenter, so while I appreciate acoustic
jazz and classical, they are not genres I listen to regularly.
I'm more likely to be spinning the acts mentioned above,
along with Aretha Franklin, Queen, and Toto. I also have
a Dave Grusin compilation I enjoy immensely, as well as
some John Coltrane and Manheim Steamroller.

[JackA]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:41:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Blame it ALL on DAW. If DAW didn't exist, no Loudness Wars."
>
>
> The quest for loudness has been around as long as man has
> figured out how to make a recording of something. Just as have
> bombs that could be dropped out of planes and the planes
> themselves.
>
>
> You could draw a parallel between the arrival of digital audio
> and the DAW in the recording business, and the advent of the
> atomic bomb in aerial warfare. After the mid-90s, you could
> say the loudness war truly went nuclear! It's the same loudness
> race it's always been, just now far more potent and damaging
> to sound in the last 20 years.

After the mid 90's, I'm sure DAW was available. But, as I stated (you agree), compression has existed for a very long time. I used to listen to vinyl 45s and during the fade, the audio cleared. But, you seldom ever hear others mention it, because they (general society) don't pay particular attention to audio.
I feel you have much greater control with DAW than a piece of electronic gear when it comes to making things "louder".

But, as you pointed out about brick-walling, a lot of amateurs at loose and they (visually) got caught.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "But, as you pointed out about brick-walling, a lot of amateurs at loose and they (visually) got caught. "


Dynamic compression and limiting(a form of dynamic
compression itself) are two ways to skin a cat. One
reduces the ratio above a specified threshold, and
the other reduces everything - period - above that
threshold. Gain is then applied in both cases and
(that is where the loudness part comes in) to bring
them up to full scale(or within 1dB of it).


On a DAW, limiting shows up more visibly than
does compression.

[JackA]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:19:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "But, as you pointed out about brick-walling, a lot of amateurs at loose and they (visually) got caught. "
>
>
> Dynamic compression and limiting(a form of dynamic
> compression itself) are two ways to skin a cat. One
> reduces the ratio above a specified threshold, and
> the other reduces everything - period - above that
> threshold. Gain is then applied in both cases and
> (that is where the loudness part comes in) to bring
> them up to full scale(or within 1dB of it).

You HAVE to be fair. Occasionally, I attempt to "Maximize Volume", but the waveform refuses. This is when I have to hunt down what is actually limiting the rest of the audio and fix THAT before Maximizing. Recently happened with a Sinatra, Japan, SHM CD.

Also, consider digital recordings, unlike analog that has a low noise floor, digital has none, so the sky is the limit with dynamics.

>
>
> On a DAW, limiting shows up more visibly than
> does compression.

Probably true, but without free DAWs, would people still have complained about compression? I say, no.

Jack

[[email protected]]

The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.

Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you can't cross.

So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.

With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for loudness.

M

[jazzman31[_2_]]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:17:58 PM UTC-3:30, wrote:
> The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.
>
> Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you can't cross.
>
> So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.
>
> With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for loudness.
>
> M

Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bus compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be left to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Barring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Rick

[[email protected]]

jazzman31: "- show quoted text -
Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bus compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be left to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Barring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Rick "

Movies shown in theaters with Dolby this or THX that have to
have their audio mastered so that they are at the appropriate
playback volume at levels specified by those companies.

Lately, theater operators have complaining that on some movies,
they have to dial back their volume settings because the loudest
parts of some film audio are *too* loud. I.E. the people watching
"Circle of Friends" in the auditorium adjacent to "The Force
Awakens" can hear ship hatch doors slamming shut or explosions
from laser fire as clearly as those in THAT room! LOL

Perhaps a case of too much - or forced - dynamic range.
So while average levels might be going up in some new
releases, it might not always be overall loudness driving that
trend.

[Trevor]

On 15/01/2016 2:12 AM, david gourley wrote:
> said...news:f2b2d602-0b62-4340-956a-
>> What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
>> concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
>> THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.
>
> He didn't say that, but he did say 'depending on material.' Did you happen
> to chat with any FOH mixers and ask how they were specifically using
> said compressors? Maybe some were combination units that were being used
> as gates instead. All you have to do is ask.
>
>>
>>
>> I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
>> and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
>> next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
>> a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
>> on those.
>
> Were there any parts of the performances that you didn't like and could
> point out that 'compressors in the processor racks' were directly
> responsible? Again, you should talk with some FOH and monitor mixers.
> You can express your concerns and have a chance to be more informed on how
> compression is being used in a live setting.

Please don't give him ideas, the last thing real sound guys need is to
deal with people like Thekma. I politely answer sensible questions when
I can, but otherwise I just say I'm too busy to talk. (and usually am)
I'm sure most sound crews do the same.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/01/2016 6:47 AM, wrote:
> The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.
> Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you can't cross.

They sure try hard though. :-(

> So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.

No, they can ALL get to zero now. The race now seems to be how many
consecutive zero's you can have before too many people complain.

>
> With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for loudness.

As long as you don't need to play it back with any normal cartridge.
There were some records made that even the best cartridges couldn't
track properly, let alone Joe averages. Not something you have to worry
about with digital thankfully.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Please don't give him ideas, the last thing real sound guys need is to
deal with people like ThekmaNROCKS(edited for clarification)"

Hey Tre, In this in and in other threads you said things
that largely echoed what I had issues with, in some
instances that I recognized you for and agreed with.

So what the hell does the above in quotes mean,
Tre(abbreviated to emphasize a point)?

[geoff]

On 17/01/2016 3:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 16/01/2016 6:47 AM, wrote:
>> The loudness war was esclated by the CD with a HARD digital limit.
>> Digital full scale is a black and white line in the sand that you
>> can't cross.
>
> They sure try hard though. :-(
>
>> So everyone wanted to see how close they could get.
>
> No, they can ALL get to zero now. The race now seems to be how many
> consecutive zero's you can have before too many people complain.
>
>>
>> With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for
>> loudness.
>
> As long as you don't need to play it back with any normal cartridge.
> There were some records made that even the best cartridges couldn't
> track properly, let alone Joe averages. Not something you have to worry
> about with digital thankfully.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
dropped a chisel on it !

geoff "


So I'm not the only one who noticed that! I
have that 1812 on Telarc CD, complete with
"Warning: Digital Cannons!" faux stickers
front and back.


Yes, cannons must have had 12-20dB limiting
applied to them based on examination in my
DAW, so the rest of the piece could be
'commercially' loud enough - by late '80s
standards - when the thing was released.


In comparison, I have Steamroller's Fresh
Aire VI, which I must keep my volume 2/3
of the way up to hear it comfortably loud.
I'm still unprepared for the transients on it
after three listenings! They reallly jump out!

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 17/01/2016 3:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> With vinyl, there is less of a hard limit, you can trade grooves for
>>> loudness.
>>
>> As long as you don't need to play it back with any normal cartridge.
>> There were some records made that even the best cartridges couldn't
>> track properly, let alone Joe averages. Not something you have to worry
>> about with digital thankfully.
>
>I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
>(14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
>dropped a chisel on it !

That's because of out of phase stuff... the groove just becomes so shallow
at the point of the cannon shot that unless your antiskate is perfect you
can't play it through.

These days it is very common for DJ records to be cut insanely hot, far
hotter than anyone ever thought possible when the RIAA standards were
written. In great part this is because too many clubs have issues with
isolation where the feedback from the speakers leaking into the phono
table limits the maximum phono gain possible.

Because of this sort of thing, there were a number of technological
innovations made in the 1980s to permit super wide excursion cutting, and
correspondindingly DJ cartridges are now designed to track very wide lateral
excursions. They still don't do well with wide vertical excursions though,
so limiting L-R becomes a big deal. Also the whole system gets slew-limited
of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[david gourley[_2_]]

Trevor > :

> On 15/01/2016 2:12 AM, david gourley wrote:
>> said...news:f2b2d602-0b62-4340-956a-
>>> What part of "I saw compressors in the FOH rack" at the outdoor
>>> concerts I've been to don't YOU get?! You'd be a FOOL to even
>>> THINK that no dynamic compression goes on at concerts.
>>
>> He didn't say that, but he did say 'depending on material.' Did you
>> happen to chat with any FOH mixers and ask how they were specifically
>> using said compressors? Maybe some were combination units that were
>> being used as gates instead. All you have to do is ask.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been to acts such as Foreigner, Kansas, and the Beach Boys
>>> and there certainly ARE compressors in the processor racks
>>> next to the mixer boards at those shows. I haven't been to
>>> a classical or purely acoustic jazz show yet, so I can't comment
>>> on those.
>>
>> Were there any parts of the performances that you didn't like and could
>> point out that 'compressors in the processor racks' were directly
>> responsible? Again, you should talk with some FOH and monitor mixers.
>> You can express your concerns and have a chance to be more informed on
>> how compression is being used in a live setting.
>
> Please don't give him ideas, the last thing real sound guys need is to
> deal with people like Thekma. I politely answer sensible questions when
> I can, but otherwise I just say I'm too busy to talk. (and usually am)
> I'm sure most sound crews do the same.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

No doubt, and that's why I said he could just ask. What's wrong with
trying to give him a positive idea on learning something? Maybe if he
heard it explained in person and not from being behind a keyboard he may
get a more direct understanding of how some of these things actually work.
Or not.

david

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 12:49 AM, wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
> (14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
> dropped a chisel on it !
>
> geoff "
>
>
> So I'm not the only one who noticed that! I
> have that 1812 on Telarc CD, complete with
> "Warning: Digital Cannons!" faux stickers
> front and back.
>
>
> Yes, cannons must have had 12-20dB limiting
> applied to them based on examination in my
> DAW, so the rest of the piece could be
> 'commercially' loud enough - by late '80s
> standards - when the thing was released.
>
>
> In comparison, I have Steamroller's Fresh
> Aire VI, which I must keep my volume 2/3
> of the way up to hear it comfortably loud.
> I'm still unprepared for the transients on it
> after three listenings! They reallly jump out!
>


Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 3:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Also the whole system gets slew-limited
> of course.
> --scott
>


Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of a
stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)

geoff

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 8:06 a.m., geoff wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 3:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Also the whole system gets slew-limited
>> of course.
>> --scott
>>
>
>
> Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
> a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)
>
> geoff



..... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
but hear just noise before the arm skates off....

geoff "

By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.

So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
> CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
> but hear just noise before the arm skates off....
>
> geoff "
>
> By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
> envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.
>
> So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
> used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
> that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84480/Erich_Kunzel-Tchaikovsky_1812_Overture-200_Gram_Vinyl_Record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogotVeBO6M

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 7:06:21 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
> > geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
> > Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
> > CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
> > but hear just noise before the arm skates off....
> >
> > geoff "
> >
> > By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
> > envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.
> >
> > So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
> > used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
> > that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.
>
> http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84480/Erich_Kunzel-Tchaikovsky_1812_Overture-200_Gram_Vinyl_Record
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogotVeBO6M

'57....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/chancesr.mp3

Jack
> geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 6:04 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 12:49 AM, wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
>> I could never quite track (Garrard, damped SME, Ortofon/Shure/AT) my
>> (14-bit? digital origin) Telarc Kunzel 1812 that looks like somebody
>> dropped a chisel on it !
>>
>> geoff "
>>
>>
>> So I'm not the only one who noticed that! I
>> have that 1812 on Telarc CD, complete with
>> "Warning: Digital Cannons!" faux stickers
>> front and back.
>>
>>
>> Yes, cannons must have had 12-20dB limiting
>> applied to them based on examination in my
>> DAW, so the rest of the piece could be
>> 'commercially' loud enough - by late '80s
>> standards - when the thing was released.
>>
>>
>> In comparison, I have Steamroller's Fresh
>> Aire VI, which I must keep my volume 2/3
>> of the way up to hear it comfortably loud.
>> I'm still unprepared for the transients on it
>> after three listenings! They reallly jump out!
>>
>
>
> Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
> CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
> but hear just noise before the arm skates off....
>

Obviously he meant the CD version of the same recording. The vinyl was
pointless IMO because it was recorded digitally anyway, and even many
good cartridges soon damaged the groove by mistracking.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 8:50 AM, geoff wrote:
>
> Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
> a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)
>
> .... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
> photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)
>

The laser head IS moving and DOES have inertia of course. It just
doesn't affect the recovered data.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 11:06 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
>> Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
>> CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
>> but hear just noise before the arm skates off....
>>
>> geoff "
>>
>> By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
>> envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.
>>
>> So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
>> used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP.

Yep, digital tapes. Recorded Sept 1978. Copyright date of first release
is 1979.


>Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 18/01/2016 11:06 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
>>

Yep, digital tapes. Recorded Sept 1978. Copyright date of first release
is 1979.


>Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.

Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

Trevor. "


Too bad it wasn't done like that Steamroller CD I mentioned -
I wouldn't mind having to crank up the 1812 CD that way(to
nearly 2 o'clock) and really FEEL those cannon blasts! LOL

[geoff]

On 18/01/2016 3:34 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 8:50 AM, geoff wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
>> a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)
>>
>> .... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
>> photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)
>>
>
> The laser head IS moving and DOES have inertia of course. It just
> doesn't affect the recovered data.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

OK how about " Not moving relating to the content of the data." ? The
sled is of course moving ;-)

geoff

[Trevor]

On 18/01/2016 2:00 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 3:34 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 18/01/2016 8:50 AM, geoff wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, there's an inertia factor to waving a rock around on the end of
>>> a stick that a laser doesn't have ;-)
>>>
>>> .... and of course the laser isn't even wiggling, so it's merely the
>>> photo-electronic switching time 'inertia' of two receptors ;-)
>>>
>>
>> The laser head IS moving and DOES have inertia of course. It just
>> doesn't affect the recovered data.
>
> OK how about " Not moving relating to the content of the data." ? The
> sled is of course moving ;-)

Not just the sled, the laser is also VC driven independently of the
sled. Then there is focus as well. Lots of motion, lots of inertia. :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor, et al:

I'm reading a lot of talk in the most recent replies to this
thread of the laser/movement hardware inside CD players.
I would assume no one is suggesting that more dynamic
audio, in digital form, accelerates wear & tear on a CD
read assembly as it would, in analog form, do so to a
stylus/cartridge assembly on a turntable.

[JackA]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:26:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Trevor, et al:
>
> I'm reading a lot of talk in the most recent replies to this
> thread of the laser/movement hardware inside CD players.
> I would assume no one is suggesting that more dynamic
> audio, in digital form, accelerates wear & tear on a CD
> read assembly as it would, in analog form, do so to a
> stylus/cartridge assembly on a turntable.

I'm sure the movement in CD player are made cheap!! Why they wear out so quickly. Like cars of today - junk, disposable.

Let's go back in the days of VCRs. Most retail ones, even expensive, had fair still frame capability. But a friend got a commercial(?) unit from a school, a Panasonic, and I NEVER seen a stiller frame ever!! Was hard to believe.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 18/01/2016 11:12 a.m., wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
>> Um, this was an LP from 1978 . You can't see large dynamic events on a
>> CD's surface. Neither can you play a CD on a Garrard 301. Well you can,
>> but hear just noise before the arm skates off....
>>
>> geoff "
>>
>> By hatchet I thought you were describing the waveform or overall
>> envelope of a needle drop of that vinyl in a DAW.
>>
>> So the Telarc CD I have was probably made from the tapes
>> used for the late '70s Kunzel 1812 LP. Didn't know it was
>> that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.
>
>http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/84480/Erich_Kunzel-Tchaikovsky_1812_Overture-200_Gram_Vinyl_Record
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ogotVeBO6M

The original 1978 LP was made from a Soundstream digital master, which is
why it was possible to get that crazy low end on there in the first place.

The early Telarc CDs were made on a Sony recorder, taking analogue signal
from the output of the Soundstream machine in the mastering room, since
format and sample rate conversion were nontrivial back at that time. There
was audible loss in the process, but that's how it goes.

What the signal path for the current CDs and LPs are, I do not know.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

>>Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.
>
>Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.

And yours might not be the same. If the matrix numbers don't match, don't
assume the mastering path was the same.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>"Do you ever go to grown-up concerts? Most everyone here can listen to music that's
>not overcompressed"
>
>
>So groups like Kansas, Beach Boys, and Kool & The
>Gang are for kids huh? And I never considered any of
>their works, in concert or as ORIGINALLY released on
>vinyl or CD, to be excessively processed. Remasters
>of those groups' efforts, on the other hand, leave me
>less than as impressed as I was by the originals.

I don't know about Kansas or Kool and the Gang, but if you go see the
current incarnation of the Beach Boys with Mark Newman on FOH, you
won't hear much compression at all.

They are using the PM5D which does have internal compression available,
but the band itself is very tight, the arrangements are built to fit
together so nobody is stepping on one another, so the amount of compression
and even gain riding needed is minimal. Newman is a smart person with good
ears, and he's working in halls where you can have real dynamics.

PA people in general are very suspicious of compression because anything
that brings levels up can eat into their GBF. Guys like the Beach Boys
have plenty of GBF to work with because their stage levels are controlled
and their halls are good and their PA crew is good, but even so there is
no reason to waste it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jazzman31 > wrote:
>
>Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "=
>mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bu=
>s compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be lef=
>t to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could =
>be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Bar=
>ring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at=
> least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often=
> they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a =
>film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Oh, usually the film guys get stems rather than the full mix, so they can
adjust the various elements inside the mix specifically for the film. They
also will frequently re-edit the music so that, for example, particular
movements in the picture fall on the beat or on particular notes.

So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
mix than the original song.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "jazzman31 > wrote:
>
>Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "=
>mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bu=
>s compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be lef=
>t to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could =
>be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Bar=
>ring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at=
> least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often=
> they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a =
>film should, after all, work together...just sayin'

Oh, usually the film guys get stems rather than the full mix, so they can
adjust the various elements inside the mix specifically for the film. They
also will frequently re-edit the music so that, for example, particular
movements in the picture fall on the beat or on particular notes.

So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
mix than the original song.
- show quoted text -"


And on your last note, I, for one, think it would be cool
to releas a few compilations of 'film' versions of songs
appearing in movie soundtracks. Shouldn't be too
difficult for them to do. I'm sure there's a market for it.

[John Williamson]

On 25/01/2016 15:11, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "jazzman31 > wrote:

>> So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
>> mix than the original song.
>>
>
>
> And on your last note, I, for one, think it would be cool
> to releas a few compilations of 'film' versions of songs
> appearing in movie soundtracks. Shouldn't be too
> difficult for them to do. I'm sure there's a market for it.
>
Not unless they can also include the video to go with them, as the
changes made often sound *very* odd without the video and other sound
to help make sense of them.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 21/01/2016 3:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Didn't know it was that old. The Telarc CD is from the late '80s.
>>
>> Rubbish! I bought mine in the early 80's.
>
> And yours might not be the same. If the matrix numbers don't match, don't
> assume the mastering path was the same.

I never assume anything! :-)
(the mastering path was not mentioned)
Which is not to say you are not correct if there was another version.

Trevor.

[jazzman31[_2_]]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:32:21 AM UTC-3:30, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> jazzman31 > wrote:
> >
> >Just a suggestion-anyone tasked with mixing a film, why not insist on the "=
> >mix" NOT the "mastered version" of these incidental music tracks-without bu=
> >s compression, limiting, maximizing and such. Those decisions should be lef=
> >t to the films mix engineer anyways. At least, this way some attempt could =
> >be made to preserve some of the dynamics, instead of a squat, loud POS. Bar=
> >ring that, at least listen in context to what comes before and after to, at=
> > least, make the piece_seem_like it belongs_read: turn it down. Quite often=
> > they stick out like sore thumbs(I'm being polite) All sound elements in a =
> >film should, after all, work together...just sayin'
>
> Oh, usually the film guys get stems rather than the full mix, so they can
> adjust the various elements inside the mix specifically for the film. They
> also will frequently re-edit the music so that, for example, particular
> movements in the picture fall on the beat or on particular notes.
>
> So what you see in the film is often a very different edit and different
> mix than the original song.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Right. Thanks for that. I just find it hard to believe the cost of doing major releases and_not_getting an actual mix that works. One of the worst of late was that flick "Special Correspondents" one of the lamest soundtracks, worst music to dialog mix I've come across. About 20 db more than necessary in places. BBC seems to have the right idea for the most part. I used to think it was my tv, but definitely it's the mixers at the soundstage.

[Scott Dorsey]

jazzman31 > wrote:
>Right. Thanks for that. I just find it hard to believe the cost of doing ma=
>jor releases and_not_getting an actual mix that works. One of the worst of =
>late was that flick "Special Correspondents" one of the lamest soundtracks,=
> worst music to dialog mix I've come across. About 20 db more than necessar=
>y in places. BBC seems to have the right idea for the most part. I used to =
>think it was my tv, but definitely it's the mixers at the soundstage.

The problem is that there are now far more new and different ways for things
to go wrong between the dubbing theatre and your home.

If you're listening in mono to something that was originally mixed for 5.1
and then folded back to stereo at the local TV station and then summed to mono
at your TV, all bets are off about what the end result is going to be.

Which is unfortunate since probably the majority of TV viewers are doing
just that.
--scott

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

[Trevor]

On 11/05/2016 11:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> If you're listening in mono to something that was originally mixed for 5.1
> and then folded back to stereo at the local TV station and then summed to mono
> at your TV, all bets are off about what the end result is going to be.
>
> Which is unfortunate since probably the majority of TV viewers are doing
> just that.

Possibly true a decade or more ago, but I can't remember the last TV or
home theatre setup I've seen with mono sound. Now many TV's do have
terrible sound, but most are stereo. The lack of sound quality thus has
nothing to do with being mono. And most programs these days have both
5.1 and stereo audio, so the 5.1 mix is rarely "folded back to stereo
*at the local TV station*". It may be at your TV when a 5.1 mix is
broadcast though.

Trevor.