| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Quintal" wrote in message
news:1124029008.6a4884b0867a39bd55ac7e9b73fef389@t eranews "Phil Allison" wrote in : "Pooh Bear" The receiver requires to do some weird stuff to demodulate the stereo component that results in further signal degradation. ** Weird stuff = switch the audio between L and R outs at 38 kHz ??? It's a little more complicated than that, Phil. Audio in a FM signal is sent as a main carrier as L+R, and a subcarrier of L-R at 38 KHz. You don't switch between the left and right, you mix the sum with the uninverted difference to get left, and the sum and an inverted difference to get the right channel. the performance issues arise from doubling the 19KHz pilot tone to get the LO frequency to bring the difference signal back to baseband. This paper explores how this is analogous to simply switching the audio at 38 JHz: http://members.tripod.com/~transmitters/stereo.htm "It can however be shown ( not by me though  that rapidlyswitching between L and R channels at 38 KHz does most of the hard work and is a near equivalent to the hard way. Switching channels as above makes a L+R signal and a DSBSC L-R channel centered around 38 KHz. It also generates a lot of harmonics but they can be filtered away. All that is left is to add the Pilot Tone. Maybe the FM MPX standards were actually decided upon the other way around, the ease of the switching method lead to it being accepted as the standard ? Rapidly sampling L and R signals alternatively is called Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)." etc. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
All that was avaialble in the 60s were analog tape recorders.
And by the standards of analog tape recorders and media of 80s, they weren't all that good. Furthermore, many of us knew it so that if a tape of a broadcast sounded a little down in the mouth, we blamed it on the taped transcription. Arny, you're the mirror image of people who adore vinyl -- you have almost nothing good to say about analog recording. You probably have a photo of "Fluffy" above your desk, intoning "All else is gaslight." I agree that analog recording made significant strides in the two-decade interval you mention. But pro tape recorders of the 60s weren't exactly chopped liver. Many great recordings were made on them, and even larger numbers of putrid recordings were made on the better recorders of a decade or two later. The medium is important, but not nearly so important as how you use it. I, too, used to feel I could hear a subtle loss of quality -- mostly "aliveness" or "immediacy" in recordings. But I didn't run double-blind tests, so there was no way to prove it. (Yes, Arny, I'm being sarcastic at your expense.) Interesting, but a few miles ahead of the generally-available technology of the day, or AFAIK even today. For example, the British DAB sequel to FM is AFAIK perceptually coded. It would /have/ to be perceptually coded, because there's no way to squeeze CD-format digital sound into a 150kHz channel. Several Seattle FM stations are using some digital system (not DAB) hidden in the same channel, along with the regular analog signal. Most are PBS; one is classical. The latter claimed "CD-quality" sound, and I asked them not to make that claim, but they declined. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... Steve King wrote: "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1124017603k@trad... In article writes: WFMT sounded breathtaking in the late 1960s For the Chicago Symphony recordings I was told they ran 30 ips 2-track 1/4 inch. I would doubt that. Most broadcast recording was done at 7.5 ips, 2-track on 1/4" tape. If they really cared about quality (as apparently WFMT did, for their symphony broadcasts) it was likely that they used 15 ips, probably on an Ampex 350. 30 ips wouldn't give them enough recording time for a symphony without piecing two reels together, and 14" reels weren't all that common. You might be right. It was a long time ago. However, Bernie Jacobs, the then owner, ran WFMT as a no-holds-barred state of the art operation. They didn't do much of anything like "most broadcasting". How long ago was this ? 15 ips 2 track 1/4" used to be the 'gold standard' for a long time until the mid/late 70s when 30 ips 1/2" took stereo mastering to a new level. Graham In 1965 Malcolm Chisholm was recording the Fine Arts Quartet using Ampex 300 decks with custom capstans he had made for 30 ips. The Ampex 300 electronics were also modified, since there was no NAB or RIAA standard for 30 ips. In addition Malcolm went through a lot of input stage tubes, looking for the lowest possible noise. I recall a conversation about his regret at the loss of extreme low freq. performance, but felt the gain (from 30 ips) in lower tape noise was worth it. I'm sure there were other mods as well. I think that RCA was also experimenting with 30 ips at about the same time, probably not with the same decks. I recall that Malcolm and the chief eng. at WFMT were friends. As you say, half-inch 2-track for mastering came much later. The Ampex 300 did handle 14" reels as I recall. I didn't work much with those decks. They and the Magnecord tape destroyers were on the way out as I and the model 350 were on the way in. The first studio I worked for had a couple, which were used in the tape duplication room. Having had to move those a few times, I was convinced that the model name, 300, came about when they weighed the thing. Can you imagine taking one of those on a remote? Steve King |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" It would /have/ to be perceptually coded, because there's no way to squeeze CD-format digital sound into a 150kHz channel. ** Shannon's theorem ( aka Shannon-Hartley Theorem) says it certainly can be done. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Hartley_theorem Using the formula C = 0.332 x B x S/N C = 1.41 Mb/s and B = 150kHz Gives a needed S/N of 28.9 dB. .......... Phil |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Will Summawank" But isn't the Tx range established in practice by determining how far away an acceptable signal can be received (ie, adequate quieting)? ** "Quieting" depends on carrier strength alone. But if I reduce the modulation level, the signal is necessarily not as far above the noise. Hence the S/N ratio drops. ** Nonsense when you take into account the REALITIES of broadcast FM. The modulation level is NOT fixed at the maximum possible. .......... Phil |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" "Phil Allison" 3) stereo muxing, this robs some of the TX power from the Mono signal, reducing Tx range ** Not true. True. There's a ton of energy in the added carriers, subcarriers, etc. ** Bull****. The only energy is in the fixed power carrier. 4) the FM pilot tone it at a low level (see 3), so it is noisy This carries the S signal, (a-b) ** Complete bull****. The 19kHz pilot is just a tone and carries no programme information. I think its at 10% modulation. Not a lot loss of max deviation, but finite and significant. ** It is insignificant in terms of the Tx range. ...the stereo subcarrier sops up deviation very nicely think you. ** Bull****. There is no stereo sub-carrier - it 100% suppressed !! http://members.tripod.com/~transmitters/stereo.htm A Stereo transmission tends to sound noisier that a Mono signal. This is mainly caused by the noise in the L-R channel. As the noise in the 23 KHz to 53 KHz segment is also brought down to the audible 0-15 KHz region by the decoding process, we now have more noise than receiving the same signal in Mono. The decoder circuits in the receiver also contribute extra noise. On top of that, as MPX signals have more bandwidth than a Mono signal, the station has to use less modulation with MPX to remain in the deviation limits. All above tend to increase the noise. (Visit USENET message link below for more info) ** None of which is even slightly relevant to the claim that the of Tx range being limited because the max deviation is a little less with stereo. Sure, stereo is noisier that mono - even under ideal conditions. But max modulation is NOT the reason. ........... Phil |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:33:47 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: Suggestions for one with good sensitivity? It is getting hard to find tuners without a bunch of other junk integrated with it. Digital tuning with presets would be nice but I haven't been able to find such a simple thing. If I might repeat what experts were saying 30+ years ago... Sensitivity is the least-important spec, unless you're living a weak-signal area and have to put up a huge 23-element Yagi to pull in the stations you want. And even then, the issue of interest should be what RF folks call "noise figure", which is how much the measured device degrades the carrier to noise ratio. This varies only very slightly among good (note waffle injection) modern tuners. Sensitivity as commonly specified compares unusably weak signals, and capture ratio is concerned with even weaker signals (mostly), because noise figure for modern devices is quite low. I'd look at the distortion and S/N specs first. Then the usual RF specs, like adjacent-channel selectivity, image rejection, etc. Tuners, like antennas, are location-specific. If you live in New York and want to receive your favorite Boston station despite a strong *adjacent* (200KHz away) local, you just convince your friend at McIntosh to build you the MR78. But the first step is antennas, antennas, antennas. No grief about Latin spellings please. Like initial tracking in the recording world, some things can't be fixed in the mix. If you live in the sticks like me, a ribbon dipole on the floor pulls in the NPR station at the end on my street just fine. If you need to "DX" 75 miles you have an antenna issue. If you live in Gotham City you have an antenna issue. Oh yeah, the FM pilot is at 9%. Everybody remembered pretty good. Good fortune, ps: I gave up on your screen Goddess puzzler. Hints? Chris Hornbeck |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message All that was avaialble in the 60s were analog tape recorders. And by the standards of analog tape recorders and media of 80s, they weren't all that good. Furthermore, many of us knew it so that if a tape of a broadcast sounded a little down in the mouth, we blamed it on the taped transcription. Arny, you're the mirror image of people who adore vinyl -- you have almost nothing good to say about analog recording. Something about being and audiophile who stuck with nothing but analog recordings in the record store from 1959 to 1983, and then waiting another 10-12 years for digital recording to become good enough and inexpensive enough. You probably have a photo of "Fluffy" above your desk, intoning "All else is gaslight." No. I agree that analog recording made significant strides in the two-decade interval you mention. But pro tape recorders of the 60s weren't exactly chopped liver. Many great recordings were made on them, and even larger numbers of putrid recordings were made on the better recorders of a decade or two later. The medium is important, but not nearly so important as how you use it. I agree with the idea that the correct use of the tool at hand is paramount, but I also recall my experinces with trying to make sonically-transparent recordings in the day of. I, too, used to feel I could hear a subtle loss of quality -- mostly "aliveness" or "immediacy" in recordings. But I didn't run double-blind tests, so there was no way to prove it. (Yes, Arny, I'm being sarcastic at your expense.) It was very apparent to me in sighted evaluations at the time, and when I went back and verified those results in DBTs I found that I wasn't imagining things. Interesting, but a few miles ahead of the generally-available technology of the day, or AFAIK even today. For example, the British DAB sequel to FM is AFAIK perceptually coded. It would /have/ to be perceptually coded, because there's no way to squeeze CD-format digital sound into a 150kHz channel. I'm not sure that is absolutely true that there's no way to squeeze CD-format digital sound into a 150kHz channel. It takes about 1.42 megabits per second to do true CD quality. I suspect that with a sophisticated modem, 1.42 megabits could probably be funneled through 150 KHz bandwidth. After all we pump 56 KB down analog telephone lines with ca. 2 KHz bandwidth. Analog FM actually has at least 53 KHz bandwidth. No, the problem is that they are still trying stuff the legacy analog signal through the same pipe. Several Seattle FM stations are using some digital system (not DAB) hidden in the same channel, along with the regular analog signal. Most are PBS; one is classical. The latter claimed "CD-quality" sound, and I asked them not to make that claim, but they declined. Hype springs eternal. ;-) |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1124064976k@trad In article writes: You could always record the broadcast off the air All that was avaialble in the 60s were analog tape recorders. Awwww, things sure were tough in the '60s. Why, I'll bet those broadcasts were even recorded on analog tape recorders. Why, they even used that old analog crap to make the records that radio stations used to play. I think that any discussion of high fidelity FM would start out with a live perforamnce. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
It would /have/ to be perceptually coded, because there's no way to
squeeze CD-format digital sound into a 150kHz channel. ** Shannon's theorem ( aka Shannon-Hartley Theorem) says it certainly can be done. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon-Hartley_theorem Using the formula C = 0.332 x B x S/N C = 1.41 Mb/s and B = 150kHz Gives a needed S/N of 28.9 dB. You're right. In fact, the multi-level (or multi-phase) system described in the article is used for dial-up modems, to get 56kbs in a 3kHz connection. "I know nussing" about the modulation schemes used for digital radio. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only energy is in the fixed power carrier.
Which is redistributed to the sidebands according to the modulation. There is no stereo sub-carrier - it 100% suppressed !! True. But the sidebands are there all the time (except for mono signals -- see below). ** None of which is even slightly relevant to the claim that the of Tx range being limited because the max deviation is a little less with stereo. Sure, stereo is noisier that mono - even under ideal conditions. But max modulation is NOT the reason. I think we've gotten confused about the original question, whatever it was. I agree it's the DSBSC "subcarrier" component that degrades the stereo S/N ratio -- and far more than the slight loss of peak modulation caused by the presence of the pilot tone. [If you want to talk about confused engineering... At least one of the proposed multiplexing systems used an FM modulated difference signal. There was great wailing and gnashing of teeth when the GE/Zenith system was adopted. But an FM subcarrier requires relatively weak modulation (especially if you're going to preserve the SCA subcarrier) -- and the S/N ratio is only a couple of dB -- at most -- better than SSB. Such a tuner would have been significantly more complex than a GE/Zenith tuner -- especially one using switching demodulation -- and have had higher distortion and poorer separation, /and/ (whew!) been even more susceptible to multipath problems.] However, you're confusing quieting with S/N ratio. They're not the same thing, especially when the presence of the pilot tone and subcarrier sidebands force reduced modulation of the main signal. One other point... The FCC used to have a requirement that stations must turn off the pilot tone during mono broadcasts. Few stations observe this. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
** Nonsense when you take into account the REALITIES of broadcast FM.
The modulation level is NOT fixed at the maximum possible. The reality is that a station is going to try to keep the modulation as high as possible, whether it's by compression (in which case slight differences in S/N aren't noticeable) or because the engineer is paying attention to what he's paid to pay attention to. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" I think that any discussion of high fidelity FM would start out with a live perforamnce. ** Absolutely. One Sydney FM station ( 2MBS-FM ) is run by an association of music overs - the Music Broadcasting Society. They operate on a very modest budget with good but basic gear and rely on unpaid helpers and announcers. Occasionally they have a live to air broadcast featuring local musicians - direct from their own medium sized studio. The clean and unprocessed sound, as heard via Quad ESL57s, is generally better than any CD that I own. ........... Phil |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1124064976k@trad... In article writes: You could always record the broadcast off the air All that was avaialble in the 60s were analog tape recorders. Awwww, things sure were tough in the '60s. Why, I'll bet those broadcasts were even recorded on analog tape recorders. Why, they even used that old analog crap to make the records that radio stations used to play. Now people who taped the broadcasts on the old Wilcox-Gay or Telectro might not have such great copies. Heck, they probably recorded by putting the crystal mic that came with the recorder in front of the radio speaker. But there were a surprising number of Ampex 600s in homes back then, and Ampex had the home series, the A-121/122 and 960/970 which had a lot in common with the 600. -- Don't forget the Wollensak ;-) Steve King |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8/14/05 4:56 PM, in article , "Arny
Krueger" wrote: "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1124017832k@trad In article writes: One non-audio advantage WFMT had is that you could hear their work product only once, while you could play the LP many times until you heard all the flaws. You could always record the broadcast off the air, and I'm sure some people did. Some may have even had decent recorders and FM tuners. EXCERPT--- (Philadelphia Orchestra recordings) beginning in 1960, when the original broadcast recordings were to be destroyed, the recording engineer spirited the original tapes away to a house he owned, where they were kept in the basement. About 15 years later, after missing a zoning hearing, the engineer got a telephone call from a neighbor, reminding him that "today" was the day the property would be demolished to become an interstate highway interchange. Miraculously, he managed to retrieve the tapes and be on time for a 2PM matinee! The broadcast tapes were subsequently relocated to his recording studio where they were stored in the attic. With the sale of the engineer's company, the tapes were moved again, to WFLN-FM, the local classical music station (which was later sold for $100 million and is no longer classical). At the radio station, the broadcast tapes were stacked against the baseboard heaters in the Smoking Lounge. In 1984 the syndication contract for the Orchestra's broadcasts moved to WFMT -FM in Chicago, which recorded the concerts until they end in 1990. At that time WFMT was the largest syndicator of fine-arts programming in the country, purchasing $50,000 (wholesale, bulk) of 1/4" recording tape every year, directly from Ampex . In 1992 WFMT decided they could no longer store the tapes of the many programs they produced (including the Philadelphia Orchestra), but which they had no longer had rights to broadcast again. Within months of the notification from WFMT , WFLN "reorganized" and the engineer who had been looking after the Philadelphia Orchestra tapes (in the Smoking Lounge) was laid off. With these two events orchestra management became concerned about the future of its broadcast archives |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phil Allison" wrote in message ... The clean and unprocessed sound, as heard via Quad ESL57s, is generally better than any CD that I own. Well you can't be 'all bad' then. Not a stacked pair by any chance ? geoff |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I visited WFMT in the sixties I saw Ampex recorders, 350s and 351s; in
the seventies and eighties I saw Studers. In the late nineties I cataloged a bunch of tapes at WFMT, mostly recordings of the U. of Chicago Folk Festival. All the 1950s-1970s recordings were 7.5 ips or 15 ips half-track 1/4". I think they had two machines permanently installed in a room at Orchestra Hall for the symphony broadcasts, and I'm pretty sure those ran at 15 ips, but the syndicated broadcasts were shipped on 7.5 ips. Peace, Paul |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phil Allison" wrote:
| | "Phil Allison" | | | | The pilot and subcarrier add to the total deviation, thus forcing a slight | | reduction of the main signal's deviation. | | | |** But that has no effect on " Tx range ". | | A reduction in main signal level causes a like increase in SNR. | | |** The noise level at the receiver depends only on the *carrier's signal |strength* at its location and then only when it has fallen below a certain |( very low) threshold. The noise level in relation to total carrier modulation "only depends on Carrier's signal strength", but when L+R only gets a (major) portion of the total modulation, the ratio between that L+R and noise goes down. Lets set up a receiver/meter such that a 400 cps sine 100% modulating the transmitter (with no stereo) produces 1.0 volts on the receiver output. Now turn on the pilot and feedn the 400 cps to L and R. 100% modulation of the transmitter will require a 1 db reduction of the 400 cps to leave room for the pilot, and the output from the receiver will be reduced 1 db, However, the noise in the receiver output will be unchanged, so if we had 70 db snr in mono, we now have 69 db remaining SNR (if the stereo garbage doesn't decrease it further). | Therefore, for a given SNR, this effectively reduces the "TX range" | | |** Nonsense. In order to maintain a 70 db SNR, you would have to have a stronger signal, perhaps achieved by moving closer to the transmitter. (or buying a better receiver or a better antenna). Phil |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
... When I visited WFMT in the sixties I saw Ampex recorders, 350s and 351s; in the seventies and eighties I saw Studers. In the late nineties I cataloged a bunch of tapes at WFMT, mostly recordings of the U. of Chicago Folk Festival. All the 1950s-1970s recordings were 7.5 ips or 15 ips half-track 1/4". I think they had two machines permanently installed in a room at Orchestra Hall for the symphony broadcasts, and I'm pretty sure those ran at 15 ips, but the syndicated broadcasts were shipped on 7.5 ips. Could be that the 30 ips stuff I remember was just an experiement--- or worse, for me, it didn't happen :-( Though not an WFMT project, I wonder what became of the Fine Arts Quartet masters. Some of those sessions were recorded in the Auditorium Theater long before its renovation. Steve King Steve King |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8/15/05 4:43 PM, in article
, "Paul Stamler" wrote: When I visited WFMT in the sixties I saw Ampex recorders, 350s and 351s; in the seventies and eighties I saw Studers. In the late nineties I cataloged a bunch of tapes at WFMT, mostly recordings of the U. of Chicago Folk Festival. All the 1950s-1970s recordings were 7.5 ips or 15 ips half-track 1/4". I think they had two machines permanently installed in a room at Orchestra Hall for the symphony broadcasts, and I'm pretty sure those ran at 15 ips, but the syndicated broadcasts were shipped on 7.5 ips. A few local recordings I did for a syndication classical overnight service (Name forgotten...) were delivered by mandate as 1/2 track 1/4" stereo 7.5ips in dbx-2 format originals. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
... On 8/15/05 4:43 PM, in article , "Paul Stamler" wrote: When I visited WFMT in the sixties I saw Ampex recorders, 350s and 351s; in the seventies and eighties I saw Studers. In the late nineties I cataloged a bunch of tapes at WFMT, mostly recordings of the U. of Chicago Folk Festival. All the 1950s-1970s recordings were 7.5 ips or 15 ips half-track 1/4". I think they had two machines permanently installed in a room at Orchestra Hall for the symphony broadcasts, and I'm pretty sure those ran at 15 ips, but the syndicated broadcasts were shipped on 7.5 ips. A few local recordings I did for a syndication classical overnight service (Name forgotten...) were delivered by mandate as 1/2 track 1/4" stereo 7.5ips in dbx-2 format originals. I don't miss DBX and Dolby in their various permutations. Steve King |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
What killed the quality aspect of FM radio was the addition
of FM to car radios in the '60's and '70's The 'volume wars' that we are now being battered with on CDs started out in broadcast, first on AM and later on FM. On AM there is more of a transmit range advantage with maximum modulation (or super-modulation in the case of assymetrical processing) than there is on FM but that hasn't stopped the FM broadcasters from wanting to be the loudest. Another issue is the mixed-use aspect of radio. Talk radio vs music, etc. If car radios had never added FM it might have been different but since radio broadcasts must be universally mono-compatible and since the lowest common denominator wins the radio sound must be preceived as being the loudest in the very noisy and (in most cases) bandwidth limited environment of the car radio. Home listening 'HiFi' use be damned. This is not a technical issue, but one of 'acceptable use' rd |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... ** Nonsense when you take into account the REALITIES of broadcast FM. The modulation level is NOT fixed at the maximum possible. The reality is that a station is going to try to keep the modulation as high as possible, whether it's by compression (in which case slight differences in S/N aren't noticeable) or because the engineer is paying attention to what he's paid to pay attention to. engineer? i believe you are talking about board ops. (or computers these days) the peak mod is whatever its set to. when subcarriers are added (not talking about stereo here) peak mod can be increased by .5% for each 1% of SCA injection (in the USA). you can pretty much make up for any lost loudness with a composite clipper. i have seen left and right demodulated stereo levels at nearly 125% while peak mod remains at 100% |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't miss dbx and Dolby in their various permutations.
For an amateur recordist who's limited to quarter-track 1/4" 7.5ips tape, dbx II was a life-saver. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... I don't miss dbx and Dolby in their various permutations. For an amateur recordist who's limited to quarter-track 1/4" 7.5ips tape, dbx II was a life-saver. You are right. And, Dolby was a life-saver, when 16 tracks were not enough and got submixed to a second 16 track. But, I still don't miss 'em, now that digital gives us other choices. Steve King |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
For an amateur recordist who's limited to quarter-track 1/4" 7.5ips tape,
dbx II was a life-saver. You are right. And, Dolby was a life-saver, when 16 tracks were not enough and got submixed to a second 16 track. But, I still don't miss 'em, now that that digital gives us other choices. I generally prefer digital to analog recording. But dbx II had one wonderful advantage over digital. All I had to do was set the audience noise before the performance started at about -20, and I got a virtually ideal recording level. I never overdrove the tape, or recorded at too low a level. Digital, of course, requires a fairly critical level setting. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
If that's audience at -20 VU on the deck meters, then setting the ol
audience at digital -40 would pretty much get it wouldn't it? No, because you'd clip on digital. Remember, dbx gives 2:1 compression /and/ the tape has at least 6dB headroom above 0. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
If that's audience at -20 VU on the deck meters, then setting the
ol audience at digital -40 would pretty much get it wouldn't it? No, because you'd clip on digital. Remember, dbx gives 2:1 compression /and/ the tape has at least 6dB headroom above 0. Shoot.. I was just thinking normal non-dbx levels... Sorry. When I switched to digital, I had to ask the orchestra to play as loudly as they thought they would during the peformance, so I could get the highest level without clipping. It turned out that orchestras almost always play 1 to 2 dB louder during the performance. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
If that's audience at -20 VU on the deck meters, then setting the ol audience at digital -40 would pretty much get it wouldn't it? No, because you'd clip on digital. Remember, dbx gives 2:1 compression /and/ the tape has at least 6dB headroom above 0. Shoot.. I was just thinking normal non-dbx levels... Sorry. When I switched to digital, I had to ask the orchestra to play as loudly as they thought they would during the peformance, so I could get the highest level without clipping. It turned out that orchestras almost always play 1 to 2 dB louder during the performance. I get about 6 dB difference most of the time. (It may even be more, since the hall has more people in it during the performance). I generally set levels so that the "loudest possible sound" in run-through is at -12dBFS, which gives me 6 dB of slop. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Not In Love With Tivoli Audio? Maybe Here is Why-FAQ and Exegesis | Audio Opinions | |||
| Opinions Needed on New DIY Radio Site | Tech | |||
| USING INTERNET RADIO TO MARKET YOUR MUSIC By Mark W. Curran | Pro Audio | |||
| FS:Tube/radio manuals, books. | Marketplace | |||
| FS: misc books... | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
