AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown


New York City-

The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12 meeting,
"Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening room?"
proved emphatic not only to the distinguished panelists, but also to a
particularly outspoken audience. Moderated by Adam Sohmer, of Sohmer
Associates, and orchestrated by AES/NY chairman Allan Tucker, the panel
discussion called producer/engineers David Baker and Elliot Fishkin; senior
director, new technology BMG Music Kevin Clement; and NHT/NHT Pro GM and
co-founder Chris Byrne to the stage.
"The mass-market consumer is very comfortable with MP3 quality audio,"
Clement stated. "When they download music, they even download it in the
smallest, lowest quality offered so that they can fit as many songs in their
iPod as possible."

Acknowledging a significant improvement in quality of downloadable music,
from the MP3 up through the AAC, AIFF and the Apple Lossless codec, the
panelists seemed to agree that listening on an iPod can actually be pretty
satisfying. As an explanation for widespread MP3 acceptance, one attendee
suggested, "The record companies are throwing quality away, with the way
records are being produced; CDs have become so harsh and distorted that the
MP3 actually seems to soften the music. Over-mastering and over-modulation
are obscuring the quality differance between the CD and other
data-compressed formats."

With representation from various segments of the marketplace, the discussion
even led to designating where responsibilities lie moving forward. Tucker
wondered whether anyone stops and just listens to music anymore, "sits in
front of a great set of speakers in a great room, or has listening become
like wallpaper--is has to coexist with everything else you're doing at the
same time?" When he asked, "Has that requirement that there be an essential
quality to the music disappeared and therefore, should we engineers not fret
so much over the source quality because it's going to be delivered a mere
shadow of its original self?" Byrne stepped up to the plate.
"I have to put that on my side of the industry," he asserted, referring to
loud speaker manufacturers. "Consumers have changed their listening
patterns, and we need to adapt out products to that change. We're not
offering them products right now for the PC or anywhere else where they are
listening to music. I don't think it's the consumer not caring, as much as
it's our reponsibility for not supplying the product."
Addressing those who may well still be engaging in a more traditional
listening room, perhaps in addition to a portable experiance, Fishkin
opined, "I think the traditional hi-fi business is dead." Of course, the
majority agreed that the traditional listening room has merely changed, with
the home theater market driving high-definition video and audio.

The warring factions of DVD-A and SACD were covered significantly, though
most in attendance agreed that more pressing to the consumer dollar is in
the record companies' establishing an incentive-driven retail chain for
selling digital music. Mazer, who has produced several DVD-As, including
Neil Young's Harvest, Frank Sinatra: Sinatra at the sands, and Santana's
Supernatural, along with SACDs such as Janis Joplin's Cheap Thrills, plugged
the DVD-A format, saying, "For a consumer product, you have to give them
something more than just the audio."
Clement concurred, adding, "When we [BMG] look at the new high-resolution
formats, we like DVD-A because of three reasons: the visual element,
surround sound, and third and least significantly, the quality. Consumers
don't care about quality."

While Clement offered an answer to the question fueling the discussion in
the first place, Fishkin pointed out, importantly, "There's an enormous
amount of good news mixed in with all this, which is that people really want
to listen to music."

AES

Clement concurred, adding, "When we [BMG] look at the new high-resolution
formats, we like DVD-A because of three reasons: the visual element,
surround sound, and third and least significantly, the quality. Consumers
don't care about quality."

Sometimes [quite often actually] when a **** crap record hits
no 1 here i my country [denmark] I used to joke about moving
to another country, it's really hard to live in the center of so much
bad taste.

This probably is the way majors think these day. So moving to
another country probably wont cut it anymore...

Get me of this planet will ya ,-)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0...light.history/

--
Regards
Jan Holm

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
: AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
: By Janice Brown
:
:
: New York City-
:
: The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12 meeting,
: "Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening room?"
: proved emphatic not only to the distinguished panelists, but also to a
:snip
: Clement concurred, adding, "When we [BMG] look at the new high-resolution
: formats, we like DVD-A because of three reasons: the visual element,
: surround sound, and third and least significantly, the quality. Consumers
: don't care about quality."
snip
: AES

It appears it is the record companies who have decided to open up the mass market to the sonic
equivelent of the Big Mac3 . For this reason there will be a market for my labels HI FI
version of the songs. The record companies are dying a slow death because they base ALL of
their decisions on profit and none of them on providing what the public wants. Us little guys
can profit by giving people what they want and cut out the record company. We are the private
boutique restaurant for music. I can smell the sizzle right now.

By-By record companies, hello Indies.

Phil Abbate

The public -- including audiophiles -- has repeatedly demonstrated that it does
not want accurate sound, it wants pleasing sound.

Having worked at retail and talked with many music lovers and audiophiles, I can
state pretty authoritatively that less than 10% of serious (???) listeners want
a truly neutral playback system -- that is, one that accurately reproduces the
recording. Most want "musical" reproduction.

This lack of interest in good sound is also true of recordings. It's virtually
impossible to find modern orchestral recordings that are minimally or simply
miked, and not drowning in a sea of reverberation.

: New York City-
:
: The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12
meeting,
: "Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening
room?"
: proved emphatic not only to the distinguished panelists, but also to a
:snip

Us little guys
can profit by giving people what they want and cut out the record company.
We are the private
boutique restaurant for music. I can smell the sizzle right now.

By-By record companies, hello Indies.

Phil Abbate
*snip*

Agreed. It certainly is an unstable time in the industry, but one thing is
for sure, instability brings change pretty damn quick. (I think we need to
make sure it's the right kind of change, though...)

I fully agree that this whole shpeal is bringing potential power back to the
indies, in that we can sell our own cd's off of website, do the mp3 thing
and all that, but what's to say that we aren't going to fall prey to
everyone turning our cd's into mp3's and sharing them?

Also, boutique 'restaurants' for music are a great idea, but i'm not sure if
it would work. On the introductory phase through growth fase of that
'industry' it would work great, but once everyone else jumps in claiming to
be 'boutique' then we've achieved nothing more than an incoherent saturated
free-for-all.

One of the main problems is that the industry is still deregulated and
uncontrollable and it will still be that way whether the majors or the
indie's are in control. So what will be the solution?

I'm pretty sure it's going to get much worse before it gets any better, even
with the advent of buying mp's legally online.

Like Jan alluded to in another post, number-one-on-the-charts music is crap
and in our industry we are SUPPOSED to sell music as product, but currently
it's merely product being sold as music.

And so, we are brought full circle back into the quality of music
discussion. Yikes. How do we get outta this mess?

Roach

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown


New York City-

The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12
meeting,
"Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening
room?"

From a recording perspective, I think quality matters as much as it ever
did. By that I mean it's relative to the playback systems and designed for
the playback systems. Recording equipment needs to pass higher quality audio
than consumer equipment, but there is a point where any advantage is lost on
the end-user. Any effort or expense beyond that point is like using a
supercomputer to write a book report - and flies in the face of any idea
that we should use technology judiciously and achieve our desired result in
the simplest way possible.

jb

it matters still.
What I can;t figure is why we're still doing this BACCKWARDS.
They USTA do it right... mak ea Great recording then treat specific release
formats to suit
Mix and Master the stuff wide strong and clear
Sell a great 44/16 CD that has included pre-squashilated mp3 stuff on it
EVERY listening device has a squashilator circuit for playback,
choose to listen clean or pre-crunched.
I had a porta-CD player for years with a NASTY-assed playback compressor
button, it was GREAT in the car... can't find one anymore...

BOB ORBAN (and anyone else): whatever happened to the (Brit?) digital
broadcast system that had selectable playback dynamics at the reciever?


--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown


New York City-

The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12
meeting,
"Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening
room?"

From a recording perspective, I think quality matters as much as it ever
did. By that I mean it's relative to the playback systems and designed for
the playback systems. Recording equipment needs to pass higher quality audio
than consumer equipment, but there is a point where any advantage is lost on
the end-user. Any effort or expense beyond that point is like using a
supercomputer to write a book report - and flies in the face of any idea
that we should use technology judiciously and achieve our desired result in
the simplest way possible.

jb

(Yeah, lets not pretend there is anything better than McMoneyalds to
eat- i HATE quality in all it's form ... it's so ... outdated.)

My personal view is if we start from the "What do ppl buy most"
perspective and then go to the "how do we do it simplest way" and then
on top of that put the "what quality is REALLY necessary to use" we end
up (note my very personal opinion on this) with quality like McMoneyalds.

Why not simply do the best products possible and then if it "needs" to
be downtweaked (like for car use) use some kind of simple mp3 ****.

I don't want to step on fragile toes here but i want to hop and hop and
hop on the toes of the ppl producing the overcompressed dung i hear most
of the time ...

I hope this all doesn't offend somebody who shouldn't take it
personally, if we do things for the money and cannot be proud of the
skills and workmanship we show in the finished product it's too bad.

--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:30:06 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown


New York City-

The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12 meeting,
"Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening room?"

If you can't afford it, but can hear it, it matters but you'll remain
frustrated. If you can't hear it, ignorance is bliss.


Regards,

Ty Ford

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford

In article writes:

Having worked at retail and talked with many music lovers and audiophiles, I
can
state pretty authoritatively that less than 10% of serious (???) listeners want
a truly neutral playback system -- that is, one that accurately reproduces the
recording. Most want "musical" reproduction.

But . . but . . . but . . . . . but shouldn't the RECORDING represent
something musical? If the recordings sounded pleasing when played back
on an accurate system, then we'd want accurate playback systems (and
most people would hear pretty much the same thing when they played the
same recording).

The fact that the recordings, to many listeners' ears, need to be
"fixed" in order to be listenable says more about the recording and
production process than it does about the accuracy (or not) of
playback systems.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Joakim Wendel" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown


New York City-

The question posed by the New York chapter of the AES at its May 12
meeting,
"Does quality matter, or has the iPod already defeated the listening
room?"

From a recording perspective, I think quality matters as much as it ever
did. By that I mean it's relative to the playback systems and designed
for
the playback systems. Recording equipment needs to pass higher quality
audio
than consumer equipment, but there is a point where any advantage is
lost on
the end-user. Any effort or expense beyond that point is like using a
supercomputer to write a book report - and flies in the face of any idea
that we should use technology judiciously and achieve our desired result
in
the simplest way possible.

jb

(Yeah, lets not pretend there is anything better than McMoneyalds to
eat- i HATE quality in all it's form ... it's so ... outdated.)


Who said anything about lack of quality

jb

My personal view is if we start from the "What do ppl buy most"
perspective and then go to the "how do we do it simplest way" and then
on top of that put the "what quality is REALLY necessary to use" we end
up (note my very personal opinion on this) with quality like McMoneyalds.

Why not simply do the best products possible and then if it "needs" to
be downtweaked (like for car use) use some kind of simple mp3 ****.

I don't want to step on fragile toes here but i want to hop and hop and
hop on the toes of the ppl producing the overcompressed dung i hear most
of the time ...

I hope this all doesn't offend somebody who shouldn't take it
personally, if we do things for the money and cannot be proud of the
skills and workmanship we show in the finished product it's too bad.

--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu

Mike Rivers wrote:

The fact that the recordings, to many listeners' ears, need to be
"fixed" in order to be listenable says more about the recording and
production process than it does about the accuracy (or not) of
playback systems.

Possibly. But it just as likely says something about listeners' familiarity with
what "real" live music sounds like.

Problem is, we can't prove either hypothesis.

/Bob Ross

In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

"Joakim Wendel" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown
SNIP
From a recording perspective, I think quality matters as much as it ever
did. By that I mean it's relative to the playback systems and designed
for the playback systems.

SNIP

jb

SNIP

Who said anything about lack of quality

jb
SNIP
"Designed for the playback system" in this case i assumed it was an mp3
player. (maybe i read You wrong there ...)
I use an iPod, lots - but most of the time it plays .aiffs so i know it
doesn't have to be low-fi but most ppl i know using mp3 players use them
to play mp3's.
ciao
J.
--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu

In this place, Arny Krueger was recorded saying ...
AES/New York Asks: 'Does Quality Matter?'
By Janice Brown
[... snip ...]

Any discussion on quality needs to establish what is meant by the term
"quality". According to the ISO9000:2000 Quality Management Standard
that is widely used in industry and commerce, "quality" to a customer
means:

- Conforming to the requirements
- Dependable and reliable
- Available when needed

A quick peruse of these definitions shows that MP3 measures up
admirably.

The key, of course, lies in the phrase "Conforming to the requirements".

This begs the question - what *ARE* the "requirements".

IMHO, the answer to the question posed by the article is YES, Quality
does matter as it always has.

The more interesting questions (already addressed by several folks) a

"Are the quality standards accepted in the music industry adequate"

and

"Does anyone care if they fall well below what we might think of as
good"?

And ... if Arif Mardin can still record something as good as Norah Jones
latest (and in an old fashioned way, to boot) that sells a million
copies in its first week of release, what does that say about current
standards?

--

George
Newcastle, England

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back [Piet Hein]

George Perfect at wrote on 6/29/04 7:04 AM:

And ... if Arif Mardin can still record something as good as Norah Jones
latest (and in an old fashioned way, to boot) that sells a million
copies in its first week of release, what does that say about current
standards?

does her latest sound better than her first?



--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

In article writes:

Possibly. But it just as likely says something about listeners' familiarity
with
what "real" live music sounds like.

This could be because much of the music that we hear today is
highly processed even when it's performed live, so even "live," we
aren't hearing live music.

I wouldn't expect somneone who attends symphony orchestra concerts to
have the same view of contemporary recordings as one who goes to dance
clubs and Madonna shows. But I know that there's some "enhancement" in
modern orchestral recordings, and controversy (of course) as to
whether it's now better or worse than some of the best recordings of
the '50's and '60's.

Problem is, we can't prove either hypothesis.

No, but we can debate it ad nauseum.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

i think Mr. Rivers makes a good point here.

But I know that there's some "enhancement" in
modern orchestral recordings, and controversy (of course) as to
whether it's now better or worse than some of the best recordings of
the '50's and '60's.

I have a couple of old Stokowski LP's that absolutely buttrape modern
orchestral recordings with regards to sound quality, general clarity and
"punch". It's not because "records sound better"... I also have a store bought
cassette of one of the works, and it tramples most modern orchestral CD I have
despite the usual cassette drawbacks.




blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

In this place, JoVee was recorded saying ...
George Perfect at wrote on 6/29/04 7:04 AM:

And ... if Arif Mardin can still record something as good as Norah Jones
latest (and in an old fashioned way, to boot) that sells a million
copies in its first week of release, what does that say about current
standards?

does her latest sound better than her first?


It sounds good enough to me. I'm not putting it forward as 'best
recorded album ever' just using it as counterpoint to the "over-
mastered, over-limited/compressed" stuff that people were, rightly,
complaining about.

--

George
Newcastle, England

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back [Piet Hein]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Having worked at retail and talked with many music lovers and audiophiles,
I can
state pretty authoritatively that less than 10% of serious (???) listeners
want
a truly neutral playback system -- that is, one that accurately reproduces
the
recording. Most want "musical" reproduction.

I think it's obvious that what consumers really need is a dictionary of
terms and definitions. Musical, such as it is, certainly can't apply to
white noise, so just as obvious, the terms can't really be applied to a
sound reproduction system because it can't make white noise musical.

But I can't blame the consumers. Marketing has hyped product in terms that
get people's attention, even if the words used are incorrect in their
application. Much like the hype about today's equipment bringing commercial
CD release quality to the masses. Or, for instance, I don't think of my
console as musical, it's functional. However, its EQ is musical. Perhaps
I'm nitpicking or just plain wrong.

From just what I've ended up doing in the last 5 years or so, I simply no
longer have a room that is to listen to music. I have the studio,
obviously, but I long ago took down and gave my surround sound system to my
son. And as it happened, it really wasn't all that nice at reproducing
music in the first place. If I have to have TWO systems to watch movies in
surround and then listen to music, then I don't want either one. Now with
DVD-A and SACD I'm considering giving a listening setup another chance.

However, it's easy to see that people spend more time in front of the PCs
and use surround systems of inferior plastic quality with a massively
overbearing sub, no correct placement, etc., so it's not surprising that
people aren't as concerned about quality. They aren't hearing it in the
first place. I often wonder what happened to my little 14 year old son who
that it was amazing how much better CDs were than cassettes, and yet now, 7
years later, finds 128 kbps MP3s to be perfectly acceptable. And I bought
him a pretty good stereo for his graduation present, so I know he has the
equipment.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

The public -- including audiophiles -- has repeatedly demonstrated that it
does
not want accurate sound, it wants pleasing sound.


This lack of interest in good sound is also true of recordings. It's
virtually
impossible to find modern orchestral recordings that are minimally or
simply
miked, and not drowning in a sea of reverberation.

George Perfect at wrote on 6/30/04 3:08 AM:

(NORAH JONES)
does her latest sound better than her first?


It sounds good enough to me. I'm not putting it forward as 'best
recorded album ever' just using it as counterpoint to the "over-
mastered, over-limited/compressed" stuff that people were, rightly,
complaining about.

well...
There IS marvelous stuff out there, John Pizzarelli consistantly does great
sounding stuff,
As an apropos direct comparison with Jones' stuff, Russ Titelman's
collaboration with Rickie Lee Jones (first album) just wipes the Jone's
effort (that's HARDLY a cut at Norah, just a hell of a good benchmark to go
for in writing, performance and production) and Titelman's long track record
with James Taylor and others holds that mark. It ain't new. It's a choice.

On or about 28 Jun 2004 18:38:53 -0400, Mike Rivers allegedly wrote:


In article writes:

Having worked at retail and talked with many music lovers and audiophiles, I
can
state pretty authoritatively that less than 10% of serious (???) listeners want
a truly neutral playback system -- that is, one that accurately reproduces the
recording. Most want "musical" reproduction.

But . . but . . . but . . . . . but shouldn't the RECORDING represent
something musical? If the recordings sounded pleasing when played back
on an accurate system, then we'd want accurate playback systems (and
most people would hear pretty much the same thing when they played the
same recording).

But their new fangled entertainment system has this HyperDSP processor and
switches for their particular music flavour, superwide mode, and MaxBASS.
They have to use all that you know, or why would it be there??


Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)

In article ,
says...


it matters still.
What I can;t figure is why we're still doing this BACCKWARDS.
They USTA do it right... mak ea Great recording then treat specific release
formats to suit
Mix and Master the stuff wide strong and clear
Sell a great 44/16 CD that has included pre-squashilated mp3 stuff on it
EVERY listening device has a squashilator circuit for playback,
choose to listen clean or pre-crunched.
I had a porta-CD player for years with a NASTY-assed playback compressor
button, it was GREAT in the car... can't find one anymore...

BOB ORBAN (and anyone else): whatever happened to the (Brit?) digital
broadcast system that had selectable playback dynamics at the reciever?

This is called "DRC" (for "dynamic range control metadata"). It's part of
both the Eureka 147 and Dolby AC-3 systems. In general, it's very poorly
understood by consumers. As far as I know, it's being implemented on a few
Eureka 147 streams. It's ubiquitous for Dolby AC-3, being part of the Dolby
system spec, although, once again, probably not one AC-3 user in a thousand
actually understands what it does.

And what does that mean to us lay people? g You forget, we aren't that
versed in all the specs, and even some here don't know who you are anymore
(it's been a long time since you've posted here).

So how about expounding a little for those one in a thousand here that might
want to incorporate some surround environments, if you would be so kind.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


it matters still.
What I can;t figure is why we're still doing this BACCKWARDS.
They USTA do it right... mak ea Great recording then treat specific
release
formats to suit
Mix and Master the stuff wide strong and clear
Sell a great 44/16 CD that has included pre-squashilated mp3 stuff on it
EVERY listening device has a squashilator circuit for playback,
choose to listen clean or pre-crunched.
I had a porta-CD player for years with a NASTY-assed playback compressor
button, it was GREAT in the car... can't find one anymore...

BOB ORBAN (and anyone else): whatever happened to the (Brit?) digital
broadcast system that had selectable playback dynamics at the reciever?

This is called "DRC" (for "dynamic range control metadata"). It's part of
both the Eureka 147 and Dolby AC-3 systems. In general, it's very poorly
understood by consumers. As far as I know, it's being implemented on a few
Eureka 147 streams. It's ubiquitous for Dolby AC-3, being part of the
Dolby
system spec, although, once again, probably not one AC-3 user in a
thousand
actually understands what it does.

Robert Orban wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

This is called "DRC" (for "dynamic range control metadata"). It's part
of both the Eureka 147 and Dolby AC-3 systems. In general, it's very
poorly understood by consumers.

And what does it mean to a consumer? I don't know much about AC3. I know my
DVD player can handle it. I know it can contain multi channel audio and
that there is a standard for *how* a DVD player should downmix it to stereo
if the DVD player has that capability. I've also read somewhere that it's
considered "standard" that a DVD player does some compression on AC3
material (is that true?).

In my DVD player's manual it says that it can decode AC3, that I can tell
it to either send all channels or to downmix it to stereo (good, because I
don't have a surround system).

I haven't found anything about "dynamic range control" in it. Maybe I
should look again...

probably not one AC-3 user in a thousand actually understands what it
does.

So what does it do?

As it's metadata I guess it gives the decoder or playback device some kind
of info that can be used for something. Is it supposed to be something that
gives me, as a consumer/user, a choice as to how the audio is presented to
me?

Please enlighten us (or me, if everyone else allready knows). :-)

Regards
/Jonas

In article 94 writes:

As it's metadata I guess it gives the decoder or playback device some kind
of info that can be used for something. Is it supposed to be something that
gives me, as a consumer/user, a choice as to how the audio is presented to
me?

As metadata, I'm guessing that it tells the receiver what to do under
conditions that the receiver can detect. For example (and I'm just
making this up as an example - I have no idea if it's true) it may
apply different compression or expansion to the program depending on
whether the receiver is set for stereo or for surround, or perhaps it
detects the setting of the volume control and determines dynamics
based on the expected listening volume.

Like other metadata, I would expect that the producer has a certain
amount of control of it beyond turning it on or off.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

As metadata, I'm guessing that it tells the receiver what to do under
conditions that the receiver can detect. For example (and I'm just
making this up as an example - I have no idea if it's true) it may
apply different compression or expansion to the program depending on
whether the receiver is set for stereo or for surround, or perhaps it
detects the setting of the volume control and determines dynamics
based on the expected listening volume.

Like other metadata, I would expect that the producer has a certain
amount of control of it beyond turning it on or off.


Hi,

Maybe this will help...
A quick google search turned up this pdf on Dolby metadata:
Title: " All About Audio Metadata "
http://dolby.com/metadata/pa.in.0101.AllMetadata.pdf
as well as this link on Dynamic Range Control from the
"ETV Cookbook"
http://etvcookbook.org/audio/drc.html

I haven't had a chance to read through all the info but
they do talk about consumer device implementation.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

So let's get the word out...
we have a world to win.

Robert Orban at wrote on 7/6/04 8:59 PM:

This is called "DRC" (for "dynamic range control metadata"). It's part of
both the Eureka 147 and Dolby AC-3 systems. In general, it's very poorly
understood by consumers. As far as I know, it's being implemented on a few
Eureka 147 streams. It's ubiquitous for Dolby AC-3, being part of the Dolby
system spec, although, once again, probably not one AC-3 user in a thousand
actually understands what it does.


In article ,
says...
What I can;t figure is why we're still doing this BACKWARDS.
They USTA do it right... make a Great Recording
-then- treat specific release formats to suit

Mix and Master the stuff wide strong and clear
Sell a great 44/16 CD that has included pre-squashilated mp3 stuff on it

EVERY listening device has a squashilator circuit for playback,
the USER tehn gets to choose to listen clean or pre-crunched.

BOB ORBAN (and anyone else): whatever happened to the (Brit?) digital
broadcast system that had selectable playback dynamics at the reciever?





--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

It means there's already a system in place to allow the SUPPLIER to make
things RIGHT and the LISTENER to do the dam,age
you make everything mastered for BRILLIANT wide-range audio (be it
music/movies/whatever)
and the USER pushes a button to listen to it
Immaculate
pre-squashed Nice a'la good FM pop radio
pre-squashed Pain a'la top-down-wind-noise car radio


Roger W. Norman at wrote on 7/6/04 10:36 PM:

And what does that mean to us lay people? g You forget, we aren't that
versed in all the specs, and even some here don't know who you are anymore
(it's been a long time since you've posted here).

So how about expounding a little for those one in a thousand here that might
want to incorporate some surround environments, if you would be so kind.

--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

what was really fun at the reference sites was that the
expansion/compression curves remind me of my old Gate SolidStatesman units!!


the overall idea here is that it should be CONVIENIENTLY up to the USER to
be able to either:
impress his friends with the range and dynamics of his movie playback,
or to play a movie at 3am in the living room, not disturb the family
sleeping with explosions AND not miss the dialogue in the quiet parts.

or

to listen to a range of music on a killer system with full dynamics, then
take the same disc out to the car, drive on the freeway and select to HEAR
it all at an even level above road noise.
The SUPPLIER does not and SHOULD NOT have to supply a single mix that
pleases the latter at the expense of the former.

It exists.



JoVee at wrote on 7/7/04 1:03 PM:

It means there's already a system in place to allow the SUPPLIER to make
things RIGHT and the LISTENER to do the damage
you make everything mastered for BRILLIANT wide-range audio (be it
music/movies/whatever)
and the USER pushes a button to listen to it
Immaculate
pre-squashed Nice a'la good FM pop radio
pre-squashed Pain a'la top-down-wind-noise car radio


Roger W. Norman at wrote on 7/6/04 10:36 PM:

And what does that mean to us lay people?
--
John I-22
(that's 'I' for Initial...)
Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key.
--

Ron Capik wrote in
:

http://dolby.com/metadata/pa.in.0101.AllMetadata.pdf
http://etvcookbook.org/audio/drc.html

Thank's for the links! Only read the short web page yet, but'll check the
rest out later.

I did go through my DVD playes menu again and I did found that I could
choose between "Maximum" and "Compressed" for dynamic range (it was on
"Maximum" per default).

I could also set the distance to the speakers (individually) and a bunch of
other audio settings that I didn't see in the manual.

I allways viewed the DVD player as a kind of mix between a CD player and a
playback only VCR (but that shouldn't end in R), wich probably explains why
I never found all that stuff before. :-)

/Jonas

Briefly, DRC sends gain control sidechain information that can cause the
receiver (at the listener's option) to dynamically compress the signal. If
the compression is not applied, the listener hears the original signal with
full dynamic range.

The bandwidth of the gain control sidechain information is fairly low,
limiting the compression to relatively long attack times (perhaps 30 ms).
Further, the compression is wideband, so the compression must be gentle to
prevent spectral gain intermodulation of the midrange by the bass.

The fact that there were so many questions about DRC in a newsgroup for audio
professionals emphasizes my point regarding its being poorly understood. If
pros don't understand it, consider the plight of consumers!

In article ,
says...


And what does that mean to us lay people? g You forget, we aren't that
versed in all the specs, and even some here don't know who you are anymore
(it's been a long time since you've posted here).

So how about expounding a little for those one in a thousand here that might
want to incorporate some surround environments, if you would be so kind.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


it matters still.
What I can;t figure is why we're still doing this BACCKWARDS.
They USTA do it right... mak ea Great recording then treat specific
release
formats to suit
Mix and Master the stuff wide strong and clear
Sell a great 44/16 CD that has included pre-squashilated mp3 stuff on it
EVERY listening device has a squashilator circuit for playback,
choose to listen clean or pre-crunched.
I had a porta-CD player for years with a NASTY-assed playback compressor
button, it was GREAT in the car... can't find one anymore...

BOB ORBAN (and anyone else): whatever happened to the (Brit?) digital
broadcast system that had selectable playback dynamics at the reciever?

This is called "DRC" (for "dynamic range control metadata"). It's part of
both the Eureka 147 and Dolby AC-3 systems. In general, it's very poorly
understood by consumers. As far as I know, it's being implemented on a few
Eureka 147 streams. It's ubiquitous for Dolby AC-3, being part of the
Dolby
system spec, although, once again, probably not one AC-3 user in a
thousand
actually understands what it does.