Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.
Watching recording levels closely as digital doesn't
seem very forgiving when signals go into the "red".

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Where am I losing the signal ?
Or is this inherent in the poor man's "home" studio ?

Any tips greatly appreciated

rogerj

I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Commercial CDs are heavily compressed. If you want to get commercial levels
you'll have to use commercial techniques. It comes at a cost however.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

A multiband compressor on the 2 buss maybe...?


"LeepinCat" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.
Watching recording levels closely as digital doesn't
seem very forgiving when signals go into the "red".

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Where am I losing the signal ?
Or is this inherent in the poor man's "home" studio ?

Any tips greatly appreciated

rogerj

"LeepinCat" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW

You should be able to make significant music on it, it is certainly far more
capable than anything used by say, the Beatles for recording.

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Where am I losing the signal ?

You're not. What you're seeing is the difference in dynamics. Commercial CDs
are compressed to give them that volume, but compression costs you the
dynamic range. We can debate eternally on the merits of either one.

If you want the volume gain you'll have to compress the track. Different
people prefer different ways, and each way has it's own sound. My personal
preference is to perform reasonable compression on each individual channel
prior to mixing, and then I might compress the final track slightly, the
result is my art (and I tend to like retaining significant dynamic range),
other people prefer to use a multiband compressor on the final mix, the
result is their art, some prefer a combination. It's up to you how and where
you do this, just play with compression at different points, and figure out
where (if and when) your art calls for compression.

This question actually gets asked a lot, if you look back through there have
been a few posts recommending specific compressors for specific purposes,
and I believe a few have even included settings.
Joe

"LeepinCat" wrote in message...

Where am I losing the signal ?

You're not.

Or is this inherent in the poor man's "home" studio ?

More or less.

Any tips greatly appreciated

Get some 2-track editing software for your PC (or Mac, whatever) and
when you're finished mixing, rip your disc into that software and have
a go at what's done to every commercial release... although it's not
really necessarily done properly with cheap tools in a computer, but
that would be on par with the way you're recording and mixing and
you'll be closer to what you're looking for. In the process, you'll also
probably learn a few things *not* to do. ;-)

Read up on mastering. Then, apply what you read to your tracking
and mixing processes, and you'll probably see improvement with just
what you have now.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"LeepinCat" wrote in message...

Any tips greatly appreciated


BTW, it's not just compression... limiting is a necessary evil in
mastering to get the average RMS power levels up near what
commercial recordings are today. Both of these tools can be
horribly destructive, that's why most folks who are happy with
their mixing and have a little cash to spare, just send the work
to a reputable mastering house for the final pixie dust.

DM

LeepinCat wrote:
Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.

So what's wrong with turning up the volume control? Think of the money
they could have saved if they didn't put that control on your player?

Where am I losing the signal ?

You aren't losing signal, you're just not processing the same way as
the CD was that you were comparing yours to. Does your Yamaha have any
"mastering tools" or at least a compressor built in? Try sending your
mix through that and set it to "stun." Your CD will be louder, It will
probably sound worse than it does now, but it'll be louder.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:07:47 -0400, LeepinCat wrote
(in article .com):

Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.
Watching recording levels closely as digital doesn't
seem very forgiving when signals go into the "red".

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Where am I losing the signal ?
Or is this inherent in the poor man's "home" studio ?

Any tips greatly appreciated

rogerj


welcome to the world of mastering.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Mike Rivers wrote:
LeepinCat wrote:
Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.

So what's wrong with turning up the volume control? Think of the money
they could have saved if they didn't put that control on your player?

Where am I losing the signal ?

You aren't losing signal, you're just not processing the same way as
the CD was that you were comparing yours to. Does your Yamaha have any
"mastering tools" or at least a compressor built in? Try sending your
mix through that and set it to "stun." Your CD will be louder, It will
probably sound worse than it does now, but it'll be louder.


Let us not also forget that BASS can eat up any headroom left. You may
find your mix is bass heavy and hence you get near the red easily. Apart
from that you can also make it sound BETTER by mastering with EQ and
Compression/Limiting. A side effect may be that it gets or is perceived
to be louder

I always blame the mix first...

LeepinCat wrote:
After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

You just need to pump up the stereo bus with some limiting and possibly
compression. There was mention that compression will kill your dynamics
and that it is a trade-off. That doesn't have to be. It's most likely
just a few transient peaks that are preventing your mix from being
louder. Properly implemented peak limiting followed by some make-up gain
will bring your overall level up without killing the dynamics of the
recording.

I'm not too familiar with the Yamaha recorder, but I be it has some sort
of "mastering" chain you can put on the stereo mix as you bounce down.
Otherwise maybe look into getting something like Sound Forge to prep
your final stereo masters.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Download Our Multi-Track Masters
www.Raw-Tracks.com
www.Mad-Host.com

In article .com,
says...

Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.
Watching recording levels closely as digital doesn't
seem very forgiving when signals go into the "red".

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Where am I losing the signal ?
Or is this inherent in the poor man's "home" studio ?

Any tips greatly appreciated

rogerj


Not this again... Geez, try reading the threads here before asking this
question, about 50% of them are all about the loudness wars. If you want it
louder, jack up a compressor/limiter on the master before burning it to CD. You
probably have no business even recording anything if you don't already know
this. Perhaps its because ham-handed morons discover how to make a program
louder with a limiter before learning anything at all about making a decent
mix that the process has gotten such a bad rep...

In article , says...

LeepinCat wrote:
After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

You just need to pump up the stereo bus with some limiting and possibly
compression. There was mention that compression will kill your dynamics
and that it is a trade-off. That doesn't have to be. It's most likely
just a few transient peaks that are preventing your mix from being
louder.

Properly implemented peak limiting followed by some make-up gain
will bring your overall level up without killing the dynamics of the
recording.


exactly. As if knocking down transients has any noticably deleterious effect
on 'dynamics'.. it doesn't! The anti-loudness cult is wrong on every one of
their canards.

"Chevdo" spewed forth in message...

As if knocking down transients has any noticably deleterious effect
on 'dynamics'.. it doesn't!

Does some one pay you to bark this crap? The point is not dynamics,
unless we have a trerminology problem.... it's *dynamic range*.

In article Ez0lg.2120$Td6.1058@trnddc08, says...


"Chevdo" spewed forth in message...

As if knocking down transients has any noticably deleterious effect
on 'dynamics'.. it doesn't!

Does some one pay you to bark this crap?

Does someone pay you to bark your ridiculous bias at me? Why do you focus on
me, troll, rather than the person who stated it first that I agreed with?


The point is not dynamics,
unless we have a trerminology problem.... it's *dynamic range*.


knocking down transients doesn't have any noticable deleterious effect on
*dynamic range*, the $$$dynamic duo$$$, or Jimmy Walker saying
@@@DYN-O-MITE!!@@@, either.

In article Ez0lg.2120$Td6.1058@trnddc08, says...


"Chevdo" spewed forth in message...

As if knocking down transients has any noticably deleterious effect
on 'dynamics'.. it doesn't!

Does some one pay you to bark this crap? The point is not dynamics,
unless we have a trerminology problem.... it's *dynamic range*.



BTW, just to explain for simpletons like you... The term 'dynamic range' is a
technical term referring to the 'headroom' between -inf and 0db. 'Dynamics'
refers to what a listener perceives he is hearing, which is dependant on the
'dynamic range' of the program. That is, if the dynamic range of a program
were reduced incrementally, as a listening audience listened, the point at
which the audience started to notice the quality of the sound deteriorating
would be the point when they notice a diminishment in perceived 'dynamics'.
Therefore, because dyanmic range has to be diminished much more than typically
loud mastering limiting diminishes it in order to be noticable to a listener's
perception, knocking down transients with mastering limiting does not reduce
dynamic range nearly enough that the average listener can notice any change in
his perception of the 'dynamics' of the sound. It sounds just as 'dynamic' to
the listener with or without the limiting applied, the limiting just makes it
so that they don't have to turn up the volume knob on their playback device.
However, listening to the non-limited program can be less tiring on the ears
than listening to the limited program, but people listening to music for
entertainment usually aren't listening to it non-stop for the several hours at
the comfortably loud levels that it takes for ear fatigue to become an issue.

In article oY0lg.66053$JX1.41429@edtnps82, says...

In article Ez0lg.2120$Td6.1058@trnddc08, says...


"Chevdo" spewed forth in message...

As if knocking down transients has any noticably deleterious effect
on 'dynamics'.. it doesn't!

Does some one pay you to bark this crap? The point is not dynamics,
unless we have a trerminology problem.... it's *dynamic range*.



BTW, just to explain for simpletons like you... The term 'dynamic range' is a
technical term referring to the 'headroom' between -inf and 0db. 'Dynamics'
refers to what a listener perceives he is hearing, which is dependant on the
'dynamic range' of the program. That is, if the dynamic range of a program
were reduced incrementally, as a listening audience listened, the point at
which the audience started to notice the quality of the sound deteriorating
would be the point when they notice a diminishment in perceived 'dynamics'.
Therefore, because dyanmic range has to be diminished much more than typically
loud mastering limiting diminishes it in order to be noticable to a listener's
perception, knocking down transients with mastering limiting does not reduce
dynamic range nearly enough that the average listener can notice any change in
his perception of the 'dynamics' of the sound. It sounds just as 'dynamic' to
the listener with or without the limiting applied, the limiting just makes it
so that they don't have to turn up the volume knob on their playback device.


Actually, it should be noted that ironically, the average listener prefers a
less-dynamic, compressed or limited sound and equates it to a perceived
increase in quality compared to non-compressed or limited programs. Of course
there is a point in which heavy compression or limiting starts to sound
distorted to the average listener, who will then perceive a drop in quality.

That is, if the dynamic range of a program
were reduced incrementally, as a listening audience listened, the point at
which the audience started to notice the quality of the sound deteriorating
would be the point when they notice a diminishment in perceived 'dynamics'.
Therefore, because dyanmic range has to be diminished much more than
typically
loud mastering limiting diminishes it in order to be noticable to a
listener's
perception, knocking down transients with mastering limiting does not reduce
dynamic range nearly enough that the average listener can notice any change
in
his perception of the 'dynamics' of the sound.

Maybe to you, and that's fine...for you.

To others, the use of a limiter and/or compressor to catch transients does
reduce the dynamic range of the audio.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article ,
says...

That is, if the dynamic range of a program
were reduced incrementally, as a listening audience listened, the point at
which the audience started to notice the quality of the sound deteriorating
would be the point when they notice a diminishment in perceived 'dynamics'.

Therefore, because dyanmic range has to be diminished much more than
typically
loud mastering limiting diminishes it in order to be noticable to a
listener's
perception, knocking down transients with mastering limiting does not reduce
dynamic range nearly enough that the average listener can notice any change
in
his perception of the 'dynamics' of the sound.

Maybe to you, and that's fine...for you.

To others, the use of a limiter and/or compressor to catch transients does
reduce the dynamic range of the audio.


The level of reading comprehension exhibited on this newsgroup is woefully low.
I specifically made that statement to clarify that while any use of
limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' does reduce the dynamic range
of audio, but that typical use of a limiter/and or compressor to 'catch
transients' does not reduce the dynamic range of the program to a degree that
is perceptible to the average listener (though I'll go one step further and
say that MOST listeners fall into that catagory, and that only a small
minority MIGHT be able to percieve a difference, though I would have to see a
double-blind listening study done before I'd believe that. My statement about
the perceptions of most listeners is not based on data from a double-blind
listening study, however, it is deduced from the fact that most listeners do
not complain about the sound on most commercially-sold CDs.)

Not only did you misinterpret my statement to be my about my own perceptions
rather than average perceptions, you also presented the tautology that use of
limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' reduces the dynamic range of
the audio as an opinion I supposedly disagree with, even though I clearly
stated it as the tautology it is in the post you're responding to. So you are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do so.
..

"Chevdo" wrote in message...

So you are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do so.


Your statement was that compression and limiting did NOT alter dynamic range.

It does.

Make peace with that and move on.

I agree that to many it may not be perceptible when done in mild doses.

I'll make peace with that and move on.

;-)

Hey Mr. Chevdo,
do you know that Bob Blank guy...?


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:7Pllg.53804$771.47960@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...

That is, if the dynamic range of a program
were reduced incrementally, as a listening audience listened, the point
at
which the audience started to notice the quality of the sound
deteriorating
would be the point when they notice a diminishment in perceived
'dynamics'.

Therefore, because dyanmic range has to be diminished much more than
typically
loud mastering limiting diminishes it in order to be noticable to a
listener's
perception, knocking down transients with mastering limiting does not
reduce
dynamic range nearly enough that the average listener can notice any
change
in
his perception of the 'dynamics' of the sound.

Maybe to you, and that's fine...for you.

To others, the use of a limiter and/or compressor to catch transients does
reduce the dynamic range of the audio.


The level of reading comprehension exhibited on this newsgroup is woefully
low.
I specifically made that statement to clarify that while any use of
limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' does reduce the dynamic
range
of audio, but that typical use of a limiter/and or compressor to 'catch
transients' does not reduce the dynamic range of the program to a degree
that
is perceptible to the average listener (though I'll go one step further
and
say that MOST listeners fall into that catagory, and that only a small
minority MIGHT be able to percieve a difference, though I would have to
see a
double-blind listening study done before I'd believe that. My statement
about
the perceptions of most listeners is not based on data from a double-blind
listening study, however, it is deduced from the fact that most listeners
do
not complain about the sound on most commercially-sold CDs.)

Not only did you misinterpret my statement to be my about my own
perceptions
rather than average perceptions, you also presented the tautology that use
of
limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' reduces the dynamic range
of
the audio as an opinion I supposedly disagree with, even though I clearly
stated it as the tautology it is in the post you're responding to. So you
are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do
so.
.

In article auqlg.8090$DR1.2024@trnddc02, says...


"Chevdo" wrote in message...

So you are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do
so.


Your statement was that compression and limiting did NOT alter dynamic range.

It does.

Make peace with that and move on.

No I never made that statment, AND I clarified the statement I did make. It
might be difficult for you to make peace with your obsession with libelling me,
particularly when you have the audacity to do so directly after I clarified the
statement I made about 'dynamics' twice...

"Chevdo" wrote in message news:Mrrlg.56195$771.47763@edtnps89...
In article auqlg.8090$DR1.2024@trnddc02, says...


"Chevdo" wrote in message...

So you are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do
so.


Your statement was that compression and limiting did NOT alter dynamic range.

It does.

Make peace with that and move on.

No I never made that statment, AND I clarified the statement I did make. It
might be difficult for you to make peace with your obsession with libelling me,
particularly when you have the audacity to do so directly after I clarified the
statement I made about 'dynamics' twice...

plonk

Chevdo wrote:

Not this again... Geez, try reading the threads here before asking this
question, about 50% of them are all about the loudness wars.

LOL with the remaining half devoted to Mac vs. Windows...

Craig

http://www.pro-tape.com

Adobe - AKG - Apple - Audio Technica - Chandler - Denon - Digidesign -
MacDSP - Marantz - Maxell - Quantegy - Primera - Ritek/Ridata - Samson
- Sennheiser - Sony

Not only did you misinterpret my statement to be my about my own perceptions
rather than average perceptions, you also presented the tautology that use of

limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' reduces the dynamic range of
the audio as an opinion I supposedly disagree with, even though I clearly
stated it as the tautology it is in the post you're responding to. So you
are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do
so.


Here's how it works guy. A lot of people have been in the group a long time.
We actually like each other. We're all too familiar with folks like yourself
who occasionally blow in with a big mouth and a bad attitude. You have two
choices

1. You put your dick in your back pocket and settle down.
2. You burn out, call everyone an asshole and slam the door when you go.

If you want to be part of it fine, stop showing your ass to everyone.
You want to blow, fine, we won't miss you.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Just a quick, "Thanks" to everyone who took the time to respond.

I DID search the group for previous threads but didn't readily find
an answer
without wading through a lot of rhetoric. But in your responses, the
differences
of opinion were very enlightening.

The, lofty, pretentious, "Chevdo's" demeaning response generated some
helpful opinions. IMO, he should start his OWN, moderated, pro group.
Then he could pick and choose, who is worthy of his time, and infinite
wisdom, and avoid being bothered by the learning curve that most people
experience
regardless of the subject of conversation. Maybe, "rec.audio.pro.
jackass" ?

Anyway, again..... "thanks" to the mentally, balanced, folks who don't
mind helping
a beginner without getting all puffed up and ****y.

-Rj


LeepinCat wrote:
Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.
Watching recording levels closely as digital doesn't
seem very forgiving when signals go into the "red".

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.
At the same level, a commercial CD is blasting.

Where am I losing the signal ?
Or is this inherent in the poor man's "home" studio ?

Any tips greatly appreciated

rogerj

"LeepinCat" wrote in message...

Maybe, "rec.audio.pro. jackass" ?

;-)

"LeepinCat" wrote:
I DID search the group for previous threads but didn't readily find
an answer
without wading through a lot of rhetoric. But in your responses, the
differences
of opinion were very enlightening.

The, lofty, pretentious, "Chevdo's" demeaning response generated some
helpful opinions. IMO, he should start his OWN, moderated, pro group.
Then he could pick and choose, who is worthy of his time, and infinite
wisdom, and avoid being bothered by the learning curve that most people
experience
regardless of the subject of conversation. Maybe, "rec.audio.pro.
jackass" ?

Chevdo is one of the worst "pros" on this group for getting a reasonable
answer. What is a "pro", anyway? I've now been recording my project for
several weeks, and am feeling pretty professional about it. No one here
would help me, and I still managed to figure out what equipment I needed and
how to hook it up, thanks to the good people at J&R Music World. They've
turned out to be the most helpful of any of the so-called "pro audio"
companies, and I've got lots of gear now so I guess that makes me a "pro",
too.

So if you just keep hammering these guys, you'll eventually get an answer
that makes some sense.

Luv,
Bob Morein

As far as I recall, the .pro in rec.audio.pro actually means
"production" not "professional"

wrote:
"LeepinCat" wrote:
I DID search the group for previous threads but didn't readily find
an answer
without wading through a lot of rhetoric. But in your responses, the
differences
of opinion were very enlightening.

The, lofty, pretentious, "Chevdo's" demeaning response generated some
helpful opinions. IMO, he should start his OWN, moderated, pro group.
Then he could pick and choose, who is worthy of his time, and infinite
wisdom, and avoid being bothered by the learning curve that most people
experience
regardless of the subject of conversation. Maybe, "rec.audio.pro.
jackass" ?

Chevdo is one of the worst "pros" on this group for getting a reasonable
answer. What is a "pro", anyway? I've now been recording my project for
several weeks, and am feeling pretty professional about it. No one here
would help me, and I still managed to figure out what equipment I needed and
how to hook it up, thanks to the good people at J&R Music World. They've
turned out to be the most helpful of any of the so-called "pro audio"
companies, and I've got lots of gear now so I guess that makes me a "pro",
too.

So if you just keep hammering these guys, you'll eventually get an answer
that makes some sense.

Luv,
Bob Morein

As far as I recall, the .pro in rec.audio.pro actually means
"production" not "professional"

wrote:

Chevdo is one of the worst "pros" on this group for getting a reasonable
answer. What is a "pro", anyway? I've now been recording my project for
several weeks, and am feeling pretty professional about it. No one here
would help me, and I still managed to figure out what equipment I
needed and
how to hook it up, thanks to the good people at J&R Music World. They've
turned out to be the most helpful of any of the so-called "pro audio"
companies, and I've got lots of gear now so I guess that makes me a
"pro",
too.

So if you just keep hammering these guys, you'll eventually get an answer
that makes some sense.

Luv,
Bob Morein

"david morley" wrote in message...

As far as I recall, the .pro in rec.audio.pro actually means
"production" not "professional"

And rec means recreational... so who's paying ? ;-)

wrote:
I've now been recording my project for
several weeks, and am feeling pretty professional about it.

Really? I've done a few recording projects over the last 8 years and I
don't feel a bit professional. I wonder where I went wrong?

No one here would help me

I've had a huge amount of help from this group. The vast majority of it
without asking for it, just by reading.

I've got lots of gear now so I guess that makes me a "pro",
too.

I'd be laughing my head off except I'm not sure if you meant that to be
a joke.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Not sure how coming to the group with a valid request for help equates
to,
"blowing in with a big mouth and a bad attitude". Why would I want to
****-off
the people I'm approaching with my hat in my hand ?
And my follow up was a, sincere thanks for the CIVIL responses (the
majority....
and YOURS included).
The only person that blew me off with an attitude was "Chevdo".
(Gauging the response thus far to THIS post, his reputation already
precedes him.)

And again, if the "legends in their own minds" don't want to be
bothered with
helping people who are inexperienced, then why not start their own
moderated group
so they can sift out whatever they consider a waste of their time ?
You might have me confused with someone else because I didn't have
ANY response
"limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' reduces the
dynamic range of
the audio". I'm too much of a novice to even address that. You might
want to look
back and see, who wrote what or switch to de-caff.
My ONLY response to the thread was sent yesterday as my, follow-up
"thanks" to those who took the time to respond. (And my suggestion to
Chevdo) -rogerj

Ty Ford wrote:
Not only did you misinterpret my statement to be my about my own perceptions
rather than average perceptions, you also presented the tautology that use of

limiter/and or compressor to 'catch transients' reduces the dynamic range of
the audio as an opinion I supposedly disagree with, even though I clearly
stated it as the tautology it is in the post you're responding to. So you
are
either incredibly stupid or incredibly obsessed with misinterpreting my
statments regardless of how stupid you have to appear to be in order to do
so.


Here's how it works guy. A lot of people have been in the group a long time.
We actually like each other. We're all too familiar with folks like yourself
who occasionally blow in with a big mouth and a bad attitude. You have two
choices

1. You put your dick in your back pocket and settle down.
2. You burn out, call everyone an asshole and slam the door when you go.

If you want to be part of it fine, stop showing your ass to everyone.
You want to blow, fine, we won't miss you.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article . com,
" wrote:

"LeepinCat" wrote:
I DID search the group for previous threads but didn't readily find
an answer
without wading through a lot of rhetoric. But in your responses, the
differences
of opinion were very enlightening.

The, lofty, pretentious, "Chevdo's" demeaning response generated some
helpful opinions. IMO, he should start his OWN, moderated, pro group.
Then he could pick and choose, who is worthy of his time, and infinite
wisdom, and avoid being bothered by the learning curve that most people
experience
regardless of the subject of conversation. Maybe, "rec.audio.pro.
jackass" ?

Chevdo is one of the worst "pros" on this group for getting a reasonable
answer. What is a "pro", anyway? I've now been recording my project for
several weeks, and am feeling pretty professional about it. No one here
would help me, and I still managed to figure out what equipment I needed and
how to hook it up, thanks to the good people at J&R Music World. They've
turned out to be the most helpful of any of the so-called "pro audio"
companies, and I've got lots of gear now so I guess that makes me a "pro",
too.

So if you just keep hammering these guys, you'll eventually get an answer
that makes some sense.

Luv,
Bob Morein

You could claim to be a pro if you own/use pro gear, I suppose, but the
U.S. government defines a professional as one who earns at least $1000
in a given line of employment...or at least that was the figure some
years back. I've been out of the country and back this decade, so I'm
not up to speed on current laws and whatnot.

Roll tape,
Eric

In article ,
david morley wrote:

As far as I recall, the .pro in rec.audio.pro actually means
"production" not "professional"

Negative. From the ng FAQ:

Q1.1 - What is this newsgroup for? What topics are appropriate here,
and what
topics are best saved for another newsgroup?

This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related
to professional audio engineering. We generally do not discuss issues
relating to home audio reproduction, though they do occasionally come
up.

Roll tape,
Eric

In article om,
LeepinCat wrote:
Not sure how coming to the group with a valid request for help equates
to,
"blowing in with a big mouth and a bad attitude". Why would I want to
****-off
the people I'm approaching with my hat in my hand ?
And my follow up was a, sincere thanks for the CIVIL responses (the
majority....
and YOURS included).
The only person that blew me off with an attitude was "Chevdo".
(Gauging the response thus far to THIS post, his reputation already
precedes him.)

I believe that Ty Ford's comments were addressed to Chevdo, and not to
yourself.
--scott


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

"Eric P." wrote in message
...
In article . com,
" wrote:

"LeepinCat" wrote:
I DID search the group for previous threads but didn't readily find
an answer
without wading through a lot of rhetoric. But in your responses, the
differences
of opinion were very enlightening.

The, lofty, pretentious, "Chevdo's" demeaning response generated some
helpful opinions. IMO, he should start his OWN, moderated, pro group.
Then he could pick and choose, who is worthy of his time, and infinite
wisdom, and avoid being bothered by the learning curve that most people
experience
regardless of the subject of conversation. Maybe, "rec.audio.pro.
jackass" ?

Chevdo is one of the worst "pros" on this group for getting a reasonable
answer. What is a "pro", anyway? I've now been recording my project for
several weeks, and am feeling pretty professional about it. No one here
would help me, and I still managed to figure out what equipment I needed
and
how to hook it up, thanks to the good people at J&R Music World. They've
turned out to be the most helpful of any of the so-called "pro audio"
companies, and I've got lots of gear now so I guess that makes me a
"pro",
too.

So if you just keep hammering these guys, you'll eventually get an answer
that makes some sense.

Luv,
Bob Morein

You could claim to be a pro if you own/use pro gear, I suppose, but the
U.S. government defines a professional as one who earns at least $1000
in a given line of employment...or at least that was the figure some
years back. I've been out of the country and back this decade, so I'm
not up to speed on current laws and whatnot.

Roll tape,
Eric


Hi Eric,

When I read the OP I wondered if it was simply a troll, or
intended to be humorous:-)

The definition you provide is closely to the term
"professional" as I understand it. One earns one's
principal income from recording to a level which
equals the national average wage.

Within the industry, we understand the term to
mean a competent, fully trained, widely experienced
individual, working at a level which one reaches
after several years, not several weeks as the
OP proposes.

With the exception of salaried staff, most recording
engineers are freelance, so the term "full time
employment" cannot be used here.

I started my career as a professional recording
engineer with a four year training period, -
work experience and college. I spent my first year in
listening and analysis, and being taught how the
performance and studio acoustic were captured
on tape. One needs to learn how to listen and acquire
the art of aural perception. A formal education
in music is a great advantage, as is knowledge of
electronics. This combination is covered by the
Tonmeister course, in universities and training
establishments here in the EU.


A professional, particularly one on
the staff of a major studio has to be
capable of recording a rock band, a jazz ensemble
or a symphony orchestra equally well, and fully
understand the difference of techniques required
for each.

A professional has to be able to read a score,
and edit a tape to a "mark up" provided by the
producer. A professional has to know what to
do when the artist produces a CD and says,
"This is the guitar sound, (or the vocal sound)
I want" This kind of expertise takes a long time
to acquire. Most studio engineers start out as
assistants. Many stay at that grade, and provide
excellent service as a right hand men.

It is a simple exercise to sit someone at a 48
channel digital console.with a 65 piece
orchestra on the other side of the glass.
You can tell within 5mins whether or not
he/she is a "pro":-))

regards to all

Iain

Iain Churches wrote:

When I read the OP I wondered if it was simply a troll, or
intended to be humorous:-)
etc ..snip

Amen & Hallelujah ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
Sadlly, many so called professionals have none of the skills you list
Iain.
With the advent of digital home recording & effects gear, any tone deaf
so called musician can now produce utter crap in their garage and
inflict it upon the public. The public, however, is now almost immune
to having it's ear drums sandpapered.

Multi-band compression is one of the more efficient ways to raise those
levels. Full-range compression often limits you as to how loud you can
make your stuff.


david morley wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
LeepinCat wrote:
Recording on a Yamaha 4416 DAW
not PRO gear, but it's all I've got.

After burning final stereo mixdown to CD ..... (in comparison to
commercial CD)
I have to crank volume to 70-80% if I want it a bit on the loud side.

So what's wrong with turning up the volume control? Think of the money
they could have saved if they didn't put that control on your player?

Where am I losing the signal ?

You aren't losing signal, you're just not processing the same way as
the CD was that you were comparing yours to. Does your Yamaha have any
"mastering tools" or at least a compressor built in? Try sending your
mix through that and set it to "stun." Your CD will be louder, It will
probably sound worse than it does now, but it'll be louder.


Let us not also forget that BASS can eat up any headroom left. You may
find your mix is bass heavy and hence you get near the red easily. Apart
from that you can also make it sound BETTER by mastering with EQ and
Compression/Limiting. A side effect may be that it gets or is perceived
to be louder

I always blame the mix first...

"iliace" wrote in message oups.com...
Multi-band compression is one of the more efficient ways to raise those
levels. Full-range compression often limits you as to how loud you can
make your stuff.

And good technique which addreses those frequencies as you both
record and mix, can practically (not entirely) eliminate the need for
any compression at all. Music style and program content play a
large role as well, but a good mix doesn't need a lot of gobbledy-gook.

DM


david morley wrote:

I always blame the mix first...

In article . com,
"Ayn Marx" wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:

When I read the OP I wondered if it was simply a troll, or
intended to be humorous:-)
etc ..snip

Amen & Hallelujah ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
Sadlly, many so called professionals have none of the skills you list
Iain.
With the advent of digital home recording & effects gear, any tone deaf
so called musician can now produce utter crap in their garage and
inflict it upon the public. The public, however, is now almost immune
to having it's ear drums sandpapered.

Thankfully, in my classes, people fitting the above description usually
drop out around mid-term time *L* Our instructors strongly reinforce
the skills Mr. Churches described. I hope to develop those, find a
position as a second engineer at some studio (or studios), and work
my way to first engineer. Not the best first engineer ever, but the best
one I can be. I will NOT own/operate or create out of a home studio,
and I much prefer an analog mixing console connectedto either a 2"
tape, an ADAT, or an HD24 MTR.

Friends sometimes ask me to save music from some of the pop
recording material that's out these days *L* I tell 'em that my
opinions and personal preferences must not influence my intent to
take any artist, from any genre, and create the highest quality
recordings I possibly can.

Sorry for the ramble here...and thanks!

Roll tape,
Eric