flint wrote:
I only respond to these to help YOU to understand your misconceptions of
audio levels. I don't care about Joe Sixpack.
Yeah, but if you happened to find yourself *working* for him sometime
you just might. (And I'm not gonna say anything else about that! *LOL*)
Not only would he not care about this, but he wouldn't be running Linux
on his PC.
I'm not gonna say anything else about *that* either! :-DDD
(You're starting to hit just a little too close to home there, flint!
It's makin' me nervous!)
YOU claimed the MFSL CD was inferior, so I wanted to correct your
understanding of why you felt this way.
And you have - quite handily, I might add. However, the music industry
obviously considered it to be bad practice to use the noise floor as a
peak reference point too, somewhere down the line. Otherwise they
wouldn't have changed it. And that's not in defense of clipping for the
sake of loudness either. I just don't see anything wrong with taking
more willful advantage of the larger range for amplitudes that CDs make
available. If it's really only a matter of turning it up or turning it
down, and you're not doing anything that harms the original dynamics,
and the range is right there waiting for you to use it - I say, by all
means, do.
YOU claimed to have been lied to by MFSL, so I wanted to correct your
perception.
Well, yeah, I guess they did deliver on their promise to provide me with
an approximately "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING", so to speak - but even
with the noise floor being used as their peak reference level, they
still had plenty of opportunity to make better use of all that available
range - and didn't for no apparent reason.
Could they have still been "excuseable" from an industrial perspective
if they'd used an even quieter signal which ultimately forced me to have
to turn it up to damn near eleven?
However, your goal is to make a mix tape that doesn't jump around in
loudness.
Actually, my goal is to make a mix *library* of over 2,100 full-length
recordings - but the principle remains relatively unchanged.
By doing this the way I am, I *should* in the future be able to grab
just about any of the MP3s I've made since discovering "normalize" and
play them in any "mix" I want without ever having to ride the pump.
To accomplish this goal you have found a perfectly acceptable
solution. Good for you.
I hope it could be good for a lot more people than just me, though, too.
Things really do sound better to me now.
I was bothered by the effect YOUR comments would have on any Joe Sixpacks
that might be reading this.
I can see a little bit of sense in your being concerned about that, yes.
This is not a case of anyone trying to rip us off with crappy sounding
recordings. This is a case of the preferences of the mastering houses when
they set levels for CDs over time.
However, you still haven't attempted to explain to me *why* the change
occurred ... and until you or somebody else does that, I'm left prone to
believing that enough people in the industry finally started to realize
that what they were doing sucked eggs (i.e. a lot of helpless people
were getting ripped off!) *LOL* :-D
This is, mind you, the exact same reason why I stopped only ripping and
encoding - and started normalizing in between the two as well! I've
still got too many of those older 2001/2002-vintage MP3s hangin' around
my hard drive and damn near every single one of them *sucks eggs*. :-)
Today's music sounds louder than music from the past.
Not after I get ahold of it.
The dynamic range of modern pop/rock music is so limited, they could
use a 10 bit (or smaller) digital signal to capture all of it. ARGH!!!
Yes, I'm sure you're right, but then one day Joe Sixpack would surely
get wind of it and think it was defective.
Myke
--
-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-