Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

cyrus the virus wrote:

the tools have always been around to squash music into oblivion..

Probably so. But please do not confuse my beloved "normalization" with
"squashing music into oblivion". I am still reeling from the shock of
having successfully whooped the ass of Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs.

What is your measure of that whooping? Waveform pictures
tell nothing. Try level matched double blind listening
evaluations with a statistically signfigant number of
listeners.

My
routine practice of normalization does not involve forcing peaks to
clip. It does not involve destroying dynamic range. It does not
involve the inadvertent addition of digital distortion to what was
originally a pristine, professionally-sanctioned waveform.

I'm afraid you are wrong. If you increase the RMS level of
a normalized piece with the use of limiting/compression you
are doing all the things you think you are not. I'm afraid
your ignorance of the technical apsects of the process is
showing and I say that with all due respect regarding any
other matter.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

flint wrote:
What I don't get is why you think that a louder CD is better than turning
the volume up on the amplifier. Why go through all this work of copying the
CD to your computer and processing it and burning a CD when all you are
doing is turning the volume up?

OK. First of all, I do not go about ripping and normalizing my WAVs
only to then burn them back to CD-Rs. I own over 2,100 compact discs -
most but certainly not all of which belong in the pop/rock category. My
current task at hand is to rip and encode MP3s of every CD in my library
so that I can carry most if not all of it with me in only one or two
large Case Logic zipperbooksful of home-burned CD-Rs.

As I am doing this, I also make duplicates of each US Top 40 hit that I
encounter. These duplicate are then given unique filenames containing
year, month, date, peak, artist and title information so that as I go
about doing all this work, my "hits" will automatically be sorted
chronologically regardless of the order in which I've encoded any given
file.

Please click he http://www.mykec.com/?page=AT40

Over time as more and more "hits" were added to my MP3 library I became
increasingly frustrated in how so many of them were either significantly
louder or quieter than each other due to their having been encoded from
so many different source CDs. Enter "normalize".

As soon as I began using "normalize", I also began noticing how "weak"
and "bad" nearly all of my previously encoded files were sounding in
comparison to the newer, "normalized" ones. Further experimentation
revealed that a significant number of my older, non-remastered CDs could
be "batch normalized" quite safely - usually by a good 5-8 decibels - in
turn making them sound (to my ears) using a single, typical level of
volume virtually as "strong" and as "good" as any of my 24-bit digitally
remastered CDs do. From this I've concluded that the simple process
which I've come to know as "normalization" (by way of this little
"normalize" application) almost certainly plays a significant role in
the digital remastering process - including, of course, all of the other
obvious elements (e.g. higher resolution source material, EQ'ing,
sometimes remixing, etc.) that also usually occurs which is beyond my
individual control.

You keep calling the Gold CD inferior simply because the volume is a touch
lower.

It's not just a touch lower. It's a lot lower. And it sounds bad
because of it. When I first bought Capitol's 1994 remaster, I couldn't
believe the difference between those two CDs. But now that the
amplification issue is within my ability to digitally correct, I think
it might be a fun exercise in boredom now to re-evaluate the relative
fidelities of the source materials used to produce these 2 CDs once
their levels are safely equalized.

Your argument is weak and you are conviced that you have solved the problem
with every older CD every pressed.

At least as far as my common pop/rock CDs are concerned, I am thrilled
now to be able to create MP3s from all of the older ones which sound
approximately equally as loud as my newer remastered discs, yes.

Think of it this way... Instead of just taking 15-20 songs from various
individual CDs and having to equalize their levels prior to burning them
to a new "mix-CD", I am over time creating a "mix-LIBRARY" of more than
2,100 full-length albums. So, just as it is a "good thing" for the
songs of a mix-CD to all share relatively similar levels - it is also a
"good thing" for all of the MP3s created from my older CDs to have
relatively similar levels with those that are made from my remastered
discs. Before I discovered "normalize", this was for me not possible.
How's that for an explanation?

But why try to force the rest of us to agree with you?

In nearly every discussion somebody always has to say something like
that. I don't understand why, because I personally don't care what you
or anyone else might choose to do with your time/life/music/whatever -
unless, of course, you/they have some valid information that could help
me with mine.

If I enjoyed messing with my CDs by altering their sound with digital
processing, I would keep it to myself and enjoy it.

As a musical/noisical recording artist in my own right, I do not believe
in recreational file-sharing. Nearly 100% of everything I've ever done
with my personal music library has never been heard by anyone other than
my wife, my boss and my closest friends and/or relatives.

But screwing with the intended results of the producers is nothing
I would be proud of.

Well, if it means having to choose between (1) once again enjoying an
older CD that's been "normalized" to -10dBFS or (2) stashing it away
forever in a drawer somewhere because I think it sounds like ****, I
think I'll choose the former.

Because until last night when I finally decided to do these tests with
both of "Dark Side Of The Moon" CDs, my MFSL disc hasn't seen the light
of a laser even once in the past 5 years. What good is it to have a CD
that you know you'll never play again? I'm actually surprised that I
hadn't already taken it to a pawn shop or something to get rid of it
before now. After all this, though, I'm really glad I didn't!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

If your goal is to make a bunch of MP3s with similar average levels, then
you have succeeded and I applaude you. MP3 encoding is distorting your audio
way beyond what even the cheapest normalizing software could do.

I never accused you of sharing music, I only acused you of creating a huge
stink in this group by sharing (in words) what you are doing and bragging
about it like you are inventing something.

I get the impression all you want to do is solve a simple problem with a
simple solution - great.

It was the subjective comments about a recording merely because it was not
recorded at a level you like that bothered me so much.

- FLINT

Bob Cain wrote:

That it's only your own assessment of your remastering.

And obviously Capitol's assessment of their remastering as well.

Mastering professionals and their clients have ears that
appreciate the nuances that dynamics give to music. Your
removal of them is not generally acknowledged as
improvement. Quite the contrary.

Have you seen the screenshot? It's painfully obvious to see whose
version of "Dark Side" has *less dynamic range*. And I'll give you a
hint: it isn't *mine*

It is the growing consensus among such professionals that
dynamics removal for the sake of broadcast loudness has gone
over the top in recent years and there is a growing movement to
stop that nonsense.

Good! I'm in agreement with them. Why you're choosing to inform *me*
of this is where you're losing me. Your response implies that you
believe I've somehow "removed dynamics" from MFSL's original WAV.
Please tell me how you are able to arrive sensibly at this conclusion
after having viewed the following screenshot:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...ey_Smoking.png

You seem to be the lone voice in the wilderness saying that we
haven't yet begun to sufficiently homogenize and distort it.

I believe I am on record (upthread) as having said when I looked and saw
how severely *clipped* were the peaks during the loudest passages of
"Long View" from Green Day's "Dookie" CD, I nearly puked. And from that
you infer that I am a lone voice in the wilderness? Hmmm... scratches
head and moves on to the next point

Where do you do the most of your listening?

Wherever I happen to be at nearly any given moment. I carry my music
with me nearly everywhere I go.

Looking at sound is like dancing about architecture.

I like that, however, looking at my screenshot reveals that it is MFSL's
original WAV and not Lord Hasenpfeffer's digital remastered edition that
possesses the *least* dynamic range.

BTW, is rec.audio a real group?

No.

It's in the headers of these messages from you

Yes, it has been. But I don't think it's there anymore.

but bounces from my news server

Yes, it should have.

which is a pretty complete one.

cheers and applause

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Bob Cain wrote:

What is your measure of that whooping?

1 (one).

Waveform pictures tell nothing.

I was accused of clipping, limiting, compressing, and reducing the
dynamic range of my original WAVs by "normalizing" individual files or
"batch normalizing" whole groups of related files with the Linux
application known as "normalize".

My waveform pictures *do indeed* reveal that not one of these
accusations are true. Every single one of them is *false*.

Try level matched double blind listening
evaluations with a statistically signfigant number of
listeners.

Such "listening evaluations" are worthless when it comes to proving that
I've neither clipped, nor limited, nor compressed, nor reduced the
dynamic range of MFSL's original WAV by "normalizing" it to an average
target level of -10dBFS.

You simply misunderstand my purpose in presenting the screenshots!

I'm afraid you are wrong. If you increase the RMS level of
a normalized piece

Stop right there... If I were to do this with "a normalized piece" then
yes, you would be correct - but the WAVs from my personal CD collection
which I subject to this particular treatment are not already normalized!

I'm not just bulldozing my way through my entire CD collection and
normalizing everything in sight. No way! I *always* scan the levels
and peak readings of every file from every CD before I even touch them
with "normalize" and then make my judgement calls from there. Most
modern, standard CDs (i.e. 1994-present) are already perfectly fine.
Virtually every 24-bit remastered CD I've encountered is too. But a
majority of the older CDs I own (i.e. 1983-1993) need a *significant*
degree of "normalization" assistance if they're to sound anywhere near
as good as the newer ones at roughly the same volume setting on my
amplifier.

This is my whole point, my argument, my *beef* with the entire system
that for so many years had me believing that if I bought a CD I was
getting "the best there was to get" - which was a complete and outright
*lie*.

I'm afraid your ignorance of the technical apsects of the process
is showing and I say that with all due respect regarding any other
matter.

That's fair enough, I suppose, given your previous misinterpretions of
just what it is that I'm doing with the WAVs I've been ripping from my
CDs. At least you haven't called me a "Liniot", a "****wit" or a
"USENET troll".

Thank you very much,

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

flint wrote:
If your goal is to make a bunch of MP3s with similar average levels, then
you have succeeded and I applaude you.

Thank you! Applause accepted.

I check my work frequently by actually listening to the "normalized"
MP3s I've created because I *am* concerned greatly about not
deliberately contributing to (what I perceive as being) the poor
fidelity that's already a part of my life.

MP3 encoding is distorting your audio way beyond what even the
cheapest normalizing software could do.

Yes, and so does my local news/talk AM radio station. (To which I just
have to say, "Aw, damn," before going on about my usual daily affairs.) g

One nice thing, however, about my US Top 40 hits collection. I do spend
the money and take the time to burn the WAVs for *those* to CD-Rs before
I delete them. This is because I am already aware that one day
something better than MP3 is going to come along and make me feel the
need to do it all over again. At least my practice of saving the WAVs
will save me a lot of time in the future since I will not have to go
about re-ripping them all over again. But for now, I find the
*convenience* of my MP3s due to the compactness of their filesizes to be
an overwhelming asset in their favor over sonic purity when it comes to
listening to my music wherever "turntables with moonrock needles" cannot
be located.

I never accused you of sharing music,

No, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was simply providing a more
illuminated view of what I do actually do with my files (i.e. keep them
to myself) since it seems that you would do the same.

I only acused you of creating a huge stink in this group by sharing
(in words) what you are doing and bragging about it like you are
inventing something.

For a common guy like me to finally have a means via freeware to do what
I do with my CDs, WAVs and MP3s it *is* similar to having invented
something. Sure, the tools that I'm using to do what I'm doing aren't
unique to me - but have you ever met anyone else in your life who's
actually decided to do something like what I'm actually doing?

For me, I think it *is* something to get excited about because every
other person I've ever met who was into ripping and encoding MP3s does
nothing but rip and encode MP3s - because it's a relatively easy process
for them to learn and do. I take it a giant step further, however,
because if I'm going to bother doing all this work, I'm damn sure going
to do everything I can to achieve the most consistently superior results
that I am able to achieve.

It's not a matter of bragging at all. It's a matter of attempting to
wake a few others up to an otherwise unheard of, unseen reality. If I
choose to share with a friend an MP3, they get from me something that
almost always sounds extremely good. Meanwhile, because they know
nothing about "normalize", if/when they reciprocate, I get something
that usually sounds pretty crappy in comparison. So, yeah, naturally
I'm going to promote my view. But promotion of my view and bragging
about it aren't the same.

Now as for the "huge stink" in this group, I'll credit that to all those
who believe they've found valid reasons to label me a "Liniot", a
"****wit" and a "USENET troll" while I've gone about simply attempting
to defend my integrity as a man who actually does care more than most
about the fidelity of the music to which he listens on a regular basis.

I get the impression all you want to do is solve a simple problem with a
simple solution - great.

Yes. I'd also "really like it a lot" if more people would normalize
their damn MP3s before making them. Because, trust me, all of the MP3s
I made from my "older CDs" prior to my discovery of "normalize" sound
like **** to me and I know I will eventually have to spend even more
time recreating them than I at first believed I would. sigh

It was the subjective comments about a recording merely because it was not
recorded at a level you like that bothered me so much.

Understood. However, regardless of its "mission", I still believe that
MFSL either (1) should keep any ****ty CDs they produce off the market
or (2) print the damn (lousy) peak/level readings for each of their CDs'
tracks clearly somewhere on the backside of their packaging so a guy
like me can see exactly what he's getting before he lays down some heavy
bucks for it. IIRC, Capitol's 1994 Remaster only cost me about half of
what that MFSL disc did ... and I enjoy it twice as much!

Over,

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

......I still believe that
MFSL either (1) should keep any ****ty CDs they produce off the market
or (2) print the damn (lousy) peak/level readings for each of their CDs'
tracks clearly somewhere on the backside of their packaging so a guy
like me can see exactly what he's getting before he lays down some heavy
bucks for it. IIRC, Capitol's 1994 Remaster only cost me about half of
what that MFSL disc did ... and I enjoy it twice as much!

Over,

Myke

Myke -

1. MFSL is out of business. They lost their market when people stopped
caring about carefully produced recordings of the original master tapes.

2. There is nothing deceiving or wrong about selling a CD with peaks
at -6dB. In the early days of CD production (and many experts still agree),
the goal was to set the levels so the noise floor (point of inaudibility)
3dB or so above digital zero. As long as the peaks were all well below 0dB,
it was a good thing.

- FLINT

This is my whole point, my argument, my *beef* with the entire system
that for so many years had me believing that if I bought a CD I was
getting "the best there was to get" - which was a complete and outright
*lie*.


The average level of the signal on a CD will not affect the "sound" of that
signal. All you are doing is turning the volume up and declaring it "Better"
than a "defective" original. Just because the CD isn't as loud as you prefer
doesn't make it sound any worse. Who lied to you about the recordings. I can
assure you that the MFSL CDs sound as good or better than the originally
released CD made from the original tapes mastered for LP production.

- FLINT

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:


This is my whole point, my argument, my *beef* with the entire system
that for so many years had me believing that if I bought a CD I was
getting "the best there was to get" - which was a complete and outright
*lie*.

Myke, I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I have no idea
what you want that a volume control doesn't equate to. I
can't imagine what you think might be missing. Best and
truth have nothing whatsoever to do with level in any
universe I've visited recently.


Later,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Meanwhile, what really scares me the most as a consumer is my fear of
the possibility that much of what is being and has already been passed
off as "digitally remastered stuff" to a sonically illiterate public is
really nothing more than the "same old stuff" with a simple,
"normalization" applied to boost the amplitude.

Okay, lesson two:

The many of the original CDs were produced from the master tapes used to
make LPs. In fact, there is a design in the CD format called de-emphasis,
which removes the RIAA curve used for making LPs from the CD signal so CD
producers could save time getting CDs out. If you ever see the "EMP"
indicator on your CD display, you are playing a CD made from a tape mastered
for LP.

When people like MFSL and others proved there was a huge market for using
the original master tapes (those the producer loved the most), they began
"re-mastering" from the original multi-track recordings. However, they did
not intend to change the sound from the original intent of the artists or
producers, they just wanted to create a CD that most closely resembled what
they heard when they mastered the tapes in the first place.

Along the way, the industry decided that using the noise floor as the
reference for the loudness of a recording was not the best idea. They
instead switched to using 0dBFS as their reference for the highest peak in
the recording. In the past couple of years they have started chopping off
the peaks with limiters and compressors and a thing called an "distresser"
to get the average level as high as possible. The goal being to have the
loudest sounding CD on the market, thus better sounding on the radio
(remember my comments about the perception of louder music?).

Also, I recently purchased some "remastered" CDs where they have not
attempted to replicate the original sound the artists and producers got.
Instead they have used different effect processors and added serious
compression to make the classic music sound similar to the current trendy
crap.

But you see, tastes have changed and they no longer primarily produce music
for LP.

- FLINT

flint wrote:

The average level of the signal on a CD will not affect the "sound" of that
signal.

You and I might understand this but Joe Sixpack doesn't - and in my
little MP3-makin' world - Joe Sixpack, unfortunately, is *everywhere*,
whether he's welcome there or not...

If Joe were ever to care enough to actually sit down and compare 2
different versions of the same music on CD, he's more than likely going
to want to compare them at the same level of volume in order to
eliminate that variable.

If the two discs are not mastered at the same level of volume and all
Joe does is simply listen to each of them, side-by-side, one right after
the other, I guarantee you he's going to pick the louder one and
consider the quieter one to be "inferior" if not outright "defective".

And if you try to tell him that they're really the same thing and all he
has to do to make them sound equally well is crank up the volume just a
little bit more, I guarantee you he'll look you straight in the eye and
say, "But I shouldn't *have* to crank up the volume if it really is the
same as that other one over there."

Perception is key.

And if he really wants to buy it right then, Joe will take the
"superior" CD and may even also perceive you to be a liar.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

You and I might understand this but Joe Sixpack doesn't - and in my
little MP3-makin' world - Joe Sixpack, unfortunately, is *everywhere*,
whether he's welcome there or not...


WE cannot change the world all at once.

I only respond to these to help YOU to understand your misconceptions of
audio levels. I don't care about Joe Sixpack. Not only would he not care
about this, but he wouldn't be running Linux on his PC.

YOU claimed the MFSL CD was inferior, so I wanted to correct your
understanding of why you felt this way.

YOU claimed to have been lied to by MFSL, so I wanted to correct your
perception.

However, your goal is to make a mix tape that doesn't jump around in
loudness. To accomplish this goal you have found a perfectly acceptable
solution. Good for you.

I was bothered by the effect YOUR comments would have on any Joe Sixpacks
that might be reading this.

This is not a case of anyone trying to rip us off with crappy sounding
recordings. This is a case of the preferences of the mastering houses when
they set levels for CDs over time. Today's music sounds louder than music
from the past. There are two reasons: 1. Switching from using the noise
floor as a reference for CDs to using the highest dynamic peak as a
reference. 2. Compressing the crap out of music. The dynamic range of modern
pop/rock music is so limited, they could use a 10 bit (or smaller) digital
signal to capture all of it. ARGH!!!


- FLINT

Bob Cain wrote:

I agree. There is no change whatsoever to the dynamics
between those two track pairs, only a change in the level.

I take it then that your use of the term "dynamics" and my use of the
term "dynamic range" are not the same. sigh

You can do the same thing with the volume knob.

If I'm only trying to play original CDs with my stereo system then most,
likely, yes.

I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing doing that?

I'm creating over time an incredible number of MP3s from the now over
2,100 CDs in my personal music library. By normalizing the older CDs so
that they are relatively just as loud as my newer remastered CDs, my
entire collection will have a sweeter, natural balance of amplitudes
across the board than it ever otherwise would.

Meanwhile, this activity of mine which I promise you is a "good thing"
for my purpose has led to all these other generally unrelated
discussions involving terms with which I am not as intimately and
mentally familiar as most others here in this forum. And everything's
pretty much snowballed from there.

All you did was turn it up.

Well, then, if that's really all I did, you can add me to the list of
people out there who swear by the "louder is better" philosophy.

What am I missing here that you are crowing about on that
link?

I do believe my crowing has everything to do with defending myself
against all the stupid accusations that have been lobbed in my direction
by more knowledgeable but less experienced people regarding how this
process of "normalization" as I've called it is supposedly doing
*damage* to my original WAVs by either clipping it or limiting it or
compressing it or reducing its dynamic range - all of which are totally
bogus accusations! And my previously less than stellar understanding of
the terminology didn't help matters much once the full-blown melee' was
underway.

BTW, did you rip the original track by DAE from a CD in your
CDROM

Yes. I used "cdparanoia" to rip all tracks.

or did you record it via some input channel, analog or
digital.

No. Not at all.

It's very unusual to see a track mastered at that
low a level on a CD.

Um, well, actually, however, it *isn't* as unusual as you might think -
and that's what I've been trying to say all along. Nearly 100% of my
older, unremastered CDs "suffer" from dramatically under-amplified peak
levels!

If I rip and encode my MP3s from these immediately as they are, they
sound just fine until you switch over to playing an MP3 encoded from
another, "digitally remastered" CD.

My use of "normalize" is an attempt to compensate for these differences
as I go about ripping and encoding MP3s of my entire CD collection over
a long period of time - which, btw, has kept me busy off-and-on for more
than the past two years now.

If you are actually doing limiting or compression on some
things that can explain why you like it better. Based on
that example I'm not sure what you are doing any more.

To my knowledge, the *only* time any limiting and/or compressing occurs
when "normalize" is being used is when I attempt to push the suggested
target amplitude required to normalize the thing by a higher than
sensible amount... but as far as I'm aware, I *never* do that.

Here is a screenshot of a close-up zoom of the same region of the same
track (1) after it's been "normalized" +4.5dB to my usual, personally
preferred target amplitude of -10dBFS and (2) again (from scratch) after
having being "normalized" (or more than likely in this case "limitized")
by a *rude amount* of +10dB to a target level of -5.33dBFS.

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20..._MFSL_Zoom.png

The reason I asked is that if you are listening in the
presence of a lot of background sound then squashing the
dynamics by what we yesterday called "limitizing" can in
fact improve the listening experience by bringing quieter
stuff up to where it would be hard to hear in the presence
of the background without making the louder dynamics any
louder. This is mainly why mastering has come to be
compromised for the sake of broadcast. Listening to
broadcast is usualy in a noisy environment.

Hmmm... I wasn't aware that that's what most broadcasting engineers
believed. Interesting.

Usually whenever I listen to music, I'm working with my computer either
at home or in an office with my face "up to the monitor" and my ears
directly between the two speakers located on each side of said monitor.
My proximity is often close. The background noise is often minimal.
My soundcard is a surprisingly nice, strong, and clean-sounding Yamaha,
and my speakers are either by KLH or a set of Creative "Inspire 5.1"
5300s - although my soundcard is not a 5.1. I'm very happy with all of
these too. Of all the people I personally know who listen to music
regularly with their computers, I've yet to find a better sounding
system than mine. (However, compared to many others' in the world, what
I have is probably **** compared to their caviar.)

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Bob Cain wrote:

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:


This is my whole point, my argument, my *beef* with the entire system
that for so many years had me believing that if I bought a CD I was
getting "the best there was to get" - which was a complete and outright
*lie*.

Myke, I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I have no idea
what you want that a volume control doesn't equate to. I
can't imagine what you think might be missing. Best and
truth have nothing whatsoever to do with level in any
universe I've visited recently.

Scratch that. Based on your last couple of posts I do
understand that you are just trying to make the levels of
your tracks the same.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Along the way, the industry decided that using the noise floor as the
reference for the loudness of a recording was not the best idea.

Why not? Were others besides me calling them too often on the phone to
voice their complaints?

Why not? When CDs hit the market, there was a fear that they would be too
loud and damage speakers and equipment (remember the Telarc 1812 Overture
with "digital canons'?). So, they chose to go with lower peaks and not lose
any sound in the noise floor. Later, someone decided that philisophy was
bunk since everyone had better speakers and electronics now. Once a few CDs
came out with peaks at 0dBFS, every was forced to follow suit or sound
quieter. This was also the same period when they started re-issuing older
CDs as remastered.


Also, I recently purchased some "remastered" CDs where they have not
attempted to replicate the original sound the artists and producers got.
Instead they have used different effect processors and added serious
compression to make the classic music sound similar to the current
trendy
crap.

Namely? I'm interested in knowing if I too have some of these
"remasters" so that I might be better able to conduct a few more Joe Keg
sound experiments.

I won't say which CDs, as I do not want to taint anybody's enjoyment of the
music.

Kinda makes you wonder now if all the "collector's edition vinyl" that's
still being pressed these days are all mastered "with emphasis" from
masters originally intended for making CDs.

Modern LPs are a niche market and the master tapes are very carefully
produced specifically for the LP transfer. With all the signal processing
available today, thee LPs sound amazingly better than the old ones.

- FLINT

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

That's fair enough, I suppose, given your previous misinterpretions of
just what it is that I'm doing with the WAVs I've been ripping from my
CDs. At least you haven't called me a "Liniot", a "****wit" or a
"USENET troll".

You take great offence for some reason at being named a 'Liniot' after
disparaging practically all major audio editing software on the strength
that your little Linux command evidently does things more completely and
some better that everything else. Not anunreasonable term , I think, in the
circumstances.

I speculated that you were probably a 'USENET troll' because of your
continued posting of ludicrous assertions in this and other newsgroups,
which is sometimes done purely to annoy people and get reactions. I still
find it hard to believe anybody could have not absorbed the good information
provided here, and steadfastly post and post the same erroneous drivel. So
although I suspect that the troll concept is the case, I cannot be certain
(which is why I am bothering to still reply).

It was *not me* who called you a ****wit, (unlike Liniot and troll , a
truely disparaging term that you could legimately take offence at ).
However to do continue to reinforce that impression on people by refusing to
even attempt to understand things that have been painstakingly clarified to
you in both technical and lay terms.

Can you grasp this : Normalising DSOTM from a -4dB peak to a 0dB peak is
exactly the same as turning up your amp/headphone volume approx one
gnat's-cock. There is no increase in dynamic range (the noise floor moves
up too), no "more frequencies" suddenly appear, and nothing is "clearer and
cleaner". It is merely a *minute amount louder* !

Your diatribes against the MFSL CD demonstrate clearly to everybody here
just how little you understand, or appear to want to understand.

geoff

flint wrote:

I only respond to these to help YOU to understand your misconceptions of
audio levels. I don't care about Joe Sixpack.

Yeah, but if you happened to find yourself *working* for him sometime
you just might. (And I'm not gonna say anything else about that! *LOL*)

Not only would he not care about this, but he wouldn't be running Linux
on his PC.

I'm not gonna say anything else about *that* either! :-DDD
(You're starting to hit just a little too close to home there, flint!
It's makin' me nervous!)

YOU claimed the MFSL CD was inferior, so I wanted to correct your
understanding of why you felt this way.

And you have - quite handily, I might add. However, the music industry
obviously considered it to be bad practice to use the noise floor as a
peak reference point too, somewhere down the line. Otherwise they
wouldn't have changed it. And that's not in defense of clipping for the
sake of loudness either. I just don't see anything wrong with taking
more willful advantage of the larger range for amplitudes that CDs make
available. If it's really only a matter of turning it up or turning it
down, and you're not doing anything that harms the original dynamics,
and the range is right there waiting for you to use it - I say, by all
means, do.

YOU claimed to have been lied to by MFSL, so I wanted to correct your
perception.

Well, yeah, I guess they did deliver on their promise to provide me with
an approximately "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING", so to speak - but even
with the noise floor being used as their peak reference level, they
still had plenty of opportunity to make better use of all that available
range - and didn't for no apparent reason.

Could they have still been "excuseable" from an industrial perspective
if they'd used an even quieter signal which ultimately forced me to have
to turn it up to damn near eleven?

However, your goal is to make a mix tape that doesn't jump around in
loudness.

Actually, my goal is to make a mix *library* of over 2,100 full-length
recordings - but the principle remains relatively unchanged.

By doing this the way I am, I *should* in the future be able to grab
just about any of the MP3s I've made since discovering "normalize" and
play them in any "mix" I want without ever having to ride the pump.

To accomplish this goal you have found a perfectly acceptable
solution. Good for you.

I hope it could be good for a lot more people than just me, though, too.

Things really do sound better to me now.

I was bothered by the effect YOUR comments would have on any Joe Sixpacks
that might be reading this.

I can see a little bit of sense in your being concerned about that, yes.

This is not a case of anyone trying to rip us off with crappy sounding
recordings. This is a case of the preferences of the mastering houses when
they set levels for CDs over time.

However, you still haven't attempted to explain to me *why* the change
occurred ... and until you or somebody else does that, I'm left prone to
believing that enough people in the industry finally started to realize
that what they were doing sucked eggs (i.e. a lot of helpless people
were getting ripped off!) *LOL* :-D

This is, mind you, the exact same reason why I stopped only ripping and
encoding - and started normalizing in between the two as well! I've
still got too many of those older 2001/2002-vintage MP3s hangin' around
my hard drive and damn near every single one of them *sucks eggs*. :-)

Today's music sounds louder than music from the past.

Not after I get ahold of it.

The dynamic range of modern pop/rock music is so limited, they could
use a 10 bit (or smaller) digital signal to capture all of it. ARGH!!!

Yes, I'm sure you're right, but then one day Joe Sixpack would surely
get wind of it and think it was defective.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Bob Cain wrote:

This is my whole point, my argument, my *beef* with the entire
system that for so many years had me believing that if I bought a
CD I was getting "the best there was to get" - which was a complete
and outright *lie*.

Myke, I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I have no idea what you
want that a volume control doesn't equate to. I can't imagine what
you think might be missing. Best and truth have nothing whatsoever
to do with level in any universe I've visited recently.

Do you think perhaps I may have been already feeling a bit "too ripped
off" by the RIAA after 23 years of constant bombardment with a line of
Pink Floyd LPs, then Pink Floyd CDs, then Pink Floyd remasters, then
Pink Floyd 24-bit remasters, and now next I'm sure it'll be Pink Floyd
DVD-As??? Y'know? It's like, c'mon. Honestly, when you bought that
133MHz Pentium processor PC, did you really believe that there wasn't
already a fully developed 500MHz Pentium III processor "waitin' in the
wings" somewhere just being held back from release until everybody'd
been ripped off by being made to buy cheap-ass 350s??? Please.

You don't think all this skepticism in me just suddenly came down with
yesterday's rain, now do ya?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
.... I just don't see anything wrong with taking
more willful advantage of the larger range for amplitudes that CDs make
available. If it's really only a matter of turning it up or turning it
down, and you're not doing anything that harms the original dynamics,
and the range is right there waiting for you to use it - I say, by all
means, do.

You are not taking advantage of anything. You are not improving the sound.
All you are doing it turning up the volume. If you weren't also compressing
these songs as MP3s, I would deride you fro adding distortion in the proces
of "normalizing" the signal. ALL DIGITAL PROCESSING IS IN NATURE
DESTRUCTIVE.

Well, yeah, I guess they did deliver on their promise to provide me with
an approximately "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING", so to speak - but even
with the noise floor being used as their peak reference level, they
still had plenty of opportunity to make better use of all that available
range - and didn't for no apparent reason.

They made full use of the dynamic range. There is nothing missing from their
CD. Every single sound that was on the original master tapes is on that CD.
All the quiet stuff and all the loud stuff. It was not compressed or
limited. It was not hindered in any way while producing the CD. They only
chose not to push the peaks to 0dBFS.


Could they have still been "excuseable" from an industrial perspective
if they'd used an even quieter signal which ultimately forced me to have
to turn it up to damn near eleven?

It doesn't matter how high you turn up your amp. If you like listening to
music at a certain level, then turn it up until the music is as loud as you
want it. There will be no more distortion than with the later release of the
CD.

I hope it could be good for a lot more people than just me, though, too.

You are adjusting the levels of MP3s so they are similar. If your goal was
to discuss this, then your subject line should have been "Normalizing audio
for consistent loudness". That is a different discussion and wouldn't have
gotten so many people ****ed off. This isn't about what is "better" or
"superior." This is about your preference that the music, whether new or
old, have a similar level when you make a mix collection.

- FLINT

flint wrote:

When CDs hit the market, there was a fear that they would be too
loud and damage speakers and equipment

Ok, ok. So when the CD was first rushed to market (the high-end market)
the homework still hadn't been handed in to be graded. I'll buy that.

(remember the Telarc 1812 Overture with "digital canons'?).

Yes, I do remember that, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, I never
got to hear it. What were the final results? Did anyone ever report in
as having destroyed their Polks with one of those things? I never found
out about it one way or the other. But, man, were those the days!

Later, someone decided that philisophy was bunk since everyone had
better speakers and electronics now.

Except all the $50G tube-ampers of course.

Once a few CDs came out with peaks at 0dBFS, every was forced to
follow suit or sound quieter. This was also the same period when
they started re-issuing older CDs as remastered.

Lemme guess, this was sometime around 1993/1994, no?

I won't say which CDs, as I do not want to taint anybody's enjoyment
of the
music.

Oh, c'mon. You can tell *me*!

I'll Pink Floyd just lost their shirts 'cuz of me.

Modern LPs are a niche market and the master tapes are very carefully
produced specifically for the LP transfer.

Well, that's good to know because I actually buy a few of those every
now and then - if I like the group well enough.

With all the signal processing available today,
thee LPs sound amazingly better than the old ones.

Hmmm... I personally wouldn't know about that because, while I *open*
them to look at all the pretty pictures in side, I never play them -
'cuz I also buy the CD version as well.

Thanks,

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:

You take great offence for some reason at being named a 'Liniot'
after disparaging practically all major audio editing software on the
strength that your little Linux command evidently does things more
completely and some better that everything else. Not anunreasonable
term , I think, in the circumstances.

Hey, but at least I'm smarter about a few more things today than I was
yesterday because of it.

As for 'Liniot', again, there are a lot of grizzly, old Unix snobs -
I mean veterans - in the world today who aren't particularly fond of the
way Linux has arrived on their scene in recent years and has proposed a
better way for them to do business. They tend to look down upon those
who use distributions such as Red Hat, for instance, for having "not
paid their dues" or somesuch unjustification - because Red Hat doesn't
force people to do everything the hardest way like slackware does, etc..
Meanwhile, I've been able to use the conveniences of Red Hat to my own
personal benefit in recent years while getting on with a few "real tasks
at hand" rather than always getting bogged down with too many piddly
technicalities which can eventually become counter-productive if allowed
to get too far out of hand. Nevertheless, my choice to use Red Hat
would in some circles cause me to be labelled a "Linux idiot" - and if
those are anything like the "Windows idiots" I have encountered at
various times in my life, well, I ain't one of those.

It was *not me* who called you a ****wit,

Didn't say you were.

Can you grasp this : Normalising DSOTM from a -4dB peak to a 0dB
peak is exactly the same as turning up your amp/headphone volume
approx one gnat's-cock.

I disagree.

There is no increase in dynamic range (the noise floor moves up too),

OK, so when the linear distance between the highest peak and the lowest
peak increases, what has been expanded? The static range?

no "more frequencies" suddenly appear,

Well, obviously *some* frequencies become harder to hear than others at
lower volumes otherwise my amplifier wouldn't have a loudness button on
its face.

and nothing is "clearer and cleaner".

In theory or perception?

It is merely a *minute amount louder* !

Again, on this, we disagree.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Geoff Wood wrote:

no "more frequencies" suddenly appear, and nothing is "clearer and
cleaner". It is merely a *minute amount louder* !

================================================== =======================

2 Psychoacoustics

2.1 Equi-loudness Curves

The sensitivity of the ear varies with frequency. The ear is most
sensitive to frequencies in the neighbourhood of 4 kHz; sound pressure
levels which are just detectable at 4 kHz are not detectable at other
frequencies. In general, two tones of equal power but different
frequency will not sound equally loud. The perceived loudness of a sound
may be expressed in sones, where 1 sone is defined as the loudness of a
40 dB tone at 1 kHz. Equi-loudness curves at several loudness levels are
shown in Figure 1. *The curve labeled "hearing threshold in quiet"
indicates the minimum level (by definition, 0 sone) at which the ear can
detect a tone at a given frequency.*

http://www.minidisc.org/aes_atrac.html (See page for graphic)

*These curves indicate that the ear is more sensitive at some
frequencies than it is at others.* Distortion at insensitive
frequencies will be less audible than at sensitive frequencies.

================================================== =======================

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message


Y'know sump'm, I think I've finally identified a major "missing link" in
our discussion here.

No, you haven't 'identified it'; it is extremely well-known.

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values - exactly
those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

However, I guess you'll manage to turn it around and totally contradict
yourself yet again, ending up claiming it is actually a Good Thing,
especially if put through a particular command line application in your OS
of choice.

geoff

Troll wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Y'know sump'm, I think I've finally identified a major "missing link" in
our discussion here.

No, you haven't 'identified it'; it is extremely well-known.

But it hasn't been brought up yet in our discussion.

Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to
MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression
filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are
present in the soundsource.

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values -
exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well
beyond adequate.

And by way of your deliberate misinterpretation of my use of the term,
"brute force", it is clear that you have depleted your potential for
injecting meaningful contributions into this thread.

However, I guess you'll manage to turn it around and totally contradict
yourself yet again, ending up claiming it is actually a Good Thing,
especially if put through a particular command line application in your OS
of choice.

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

It seems to me that if the older method of measuring peaks vs. the newer
method of measuring peaks is real, what sense does it make to create
collections of MP3s from CDs which hail from both eras? Tis best to
normalize the old and leave the new one alone for a superior balance lf
loudnesses across-the-board.

Of course, you still don't believe certain frequencies can become too
weak to be heard at lower amplitudes while others remain less affected.

Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD
of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all
the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the
frequencies that are recorded on that disc! Although thanks to you I
wasn't fooled by this. I knew beyond all doubt that even though I
couldn't hear them, those frequencies were still on that gold disc -
safe and sound.

Myke


--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:59:08 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

I have no disagreement with you here about the nature of the music
itself. My initial argument was that "normalize" has enabled me to
frequently produce 128KBps MP3s which sound better to my ears and brain
than do the original source CDs from which the original WAVs were
ripped. That in and of itself is the point I'm *trying* to prove by all
of this. Everyone keeps telling me I'm full of **** when I say this and
I know that I am not!

No, everyone keeps telling you that you're full of **** because you
claim to have 'whopped the ass of MFSL', when all you have done is
shove the signal through a meatgrinder that makes it sound 'better' to
*you*. Not 'better' in any absolute sense, just the way *you* like it.


The point is you are changing the artists work.

No, I'm changing the work of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab - which I
personally believe should *not* be possible. I paid them in exchange
for something I should not be able to improve on my own - yet that is in
no way what I received - by any stretch of the imagination.

HTF do you know? Do you have access to the original master tapes? Do
you understand what MFSL was set up to *do*?

And my experience is such that I have learned that a *majority* of the
other standard, commercial compact discs within my personal collection
are mastered just as horribly as my MFSL Ultradisc II version of "Dark
Side". And for this I am *thankful* to have "normalize" on my side. It
has truly proven to be a "magic bullet" in my arsenal for improving the
sound of my CDs before I encode them to MP3.

If that's what floats *your* boat, then fine. Just don't give us all
this crap about how you have produced a 'superior' sound with your
scrunched and squeezed multi-processed MP3..................

They sold to me (and obviously an untold number of other people) a
****ty WAV on a gold-plated disc at a very high price. Have you a
better term for this than I?

The closest possible approach to the original master tape.........

Y'know, I'd really like to believe you but at this point without no
reasonable explanation from someone who was actually on the MFSL staff
at the time this disc was produced, I simply cannot. Their CD sounds
like mud. After "normalizing" it to -10dBFS, however, I have made it
"come alive" on my desktop.

Um, I'm not sure that produce something that sounds good and loud on
desktop speakers was entirely the intention of the MFSL staff......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:07:08 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer
wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

What is your measure of that whooping?

1 (one).

Waveform pictures tell nothing.

I was accused of clipping, limiting, compressing, and reducing the
dynamic range of my original WAVs by "normalizing" individual files or
"batch normalizing" whole groups of related files with the Linux
application known as "normalize".

My waveform pictures *do indeed* reveal that not one of these
accusations are true. Every single one of them is *false*.

You appear unable to understand the basics. You *cannot* increase the
average level of a piece of music (while avoiding clipping) without
affecting the dynamics of the piece. This is not simply a matter of
comparing the highest peak with the lowest trough, but of observing
the *transfer curve* which determines the relationship of loud and
quiet passages. In order to 'normalise' to a different average level,
you must be changing something, yes? If it's not a simple matter of
increasing the level of the entire CD (aka turning up the volume
control), then you are clearly messing with the internal dynamics, and
introducing a form of 'soft limiting'. This should be obvious.

If *you* like the sound of that, then fine, but please don't jump onto
this forum crowing that you've 'whopped the ass' of MFSL, because that
just makes you look like a brain-dead ten-year-old with a new toy.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 04:59:13 GMT, flint wrote:

The many of the original CDs were produced from the master tapes used to
make LPs. In fact, there is a design in the CD format called de-emphasis,
which removes the RIAA curve used for making LPs from the CD signal so CD
producers could save time getting CDs out. If you ever see the "EMP"
indicator on your CD display, you are playing a CD made from a tape mastered
for LP.

OK, just to take this OT even more...

Emphasis in relation to CD refers to HF lift applied to the source
material when mastering to CD, which is then removed on replay, in an
attempt to increase the perceived noiselessness of the system. A silly
idea that as far as I'm aware was never used - that is, there are no
commercial CDs that use emphasis. OK, bold statement, but I bet there
aren't many, and none are from the last 15 years or so.

This emphasis was not intended to be applied to the master. In the same
way, RIAA EQ was never applied to the master ('Master' meaning the tape
that left the mixing room as being the final product). Have you seen
the RIAA curve? It is so severe that is would be unlistenable to, so
any idea that removing this EQ in order to master to Cd is wrong.

However, ignoring what kit the end product is to be used on when mixing
and mastering is silly, so recordings made when 33rpm vinyl was king
took into account the limitations of the medium, in the same way as
mixing for the cinema, mixing for TV (which is what I do), mixing for CD
and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So,
the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a
remix done today by the same people, probably. That's OK by me, but
bunging it through some 'normaliser' (which, as evidenced by the
screenshots, also buggers the dynamic range (so it isn't actually a
'normaliser anyway, by definition) ), is absolutely not on.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:06:39 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Some yesterday were telling me that by using "normalize" to
boost the amplitude of my original WAV that I was reducing the original
dynamic range - which I've now proven is obviously not the case.

Eh? You blind too?

Not only have you reduced the dynamic range (which normalisation doesn't
do, so you are not normalising), in some places you have actually
INVERTED the dynamic range!!!

To give you a clue(!), look at the peaks around 11 minutes and 24.5
minutes. In the original the peaks are higher at 24.5 than at 11.
You've made the peaks at 11 higher than at 24.5!

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

Low amplitudes are certainly something to be avoided when recording to
MiniDiscs because they'll undoubtedly cause the ATRAC compression
filters to remove the weakest, most susceptible frequencies that are
present in the soundsource.

And moreso with MP3, which you delight in listening to extensively.

MP3 is 'brute force' merely by virtue of it's encoding rate being
user-selectable, almost universally to highly detrimental values -
exactly those that excite you so much by their 'small file-size'.

For general listening purposes, 192KBps and even 128KBps MP3s are well
beyond adequate.

128 is defintie insufficient. 192 is seldom-used, 160 more common, and much
better than 128 though still audibly inferior to uncompressed (datawise).

And by way of your deliberate misinterpretation of my use of the term,
"brute force", it is clear that you have depleted your potential for
injecting meaningful contributions into this thread.

As you like...

However, I guess you'll manage to turn it around and totally contradict
yourself yet again, ending up claiming it is actually a Good Thing,
especially if put through a particular command line application in your
OS
of choice.

Well, my normalized MP3s do unquestionably sound better than those which
are not. I listen to them all the time. When they play in random
shuffle mode, it's patently obvious which ones have and which ones have
not been normalized.

'Better' to you being 'louder'. Although barely perceptably.

It seems to me that if the older method of measuring peaks vs. the newer
method of measuring peaks is real,

What new and old methods of measuring peaks ? There has always been one
consistent method.

Well, I just conducted a test. I put on my Capitol 1994 Remastered CD
of Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" and turned the volume knob all
the way down - and son of a gun, I couldn't hear *any* of the
frequencies that are recorded on that disc!

I have little confidence in your abiity to hear any subtleties at all, let
alone identify or describe them. Describing your playback chain might help.

geoff

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


You appear unable to understand the basics. You *cannot* increase the
average level of a piece of music (while avoiding clipping) without
affecting the dynamics of the piece.

Stewie - you miss the pont. He is *improving * the dynamics, because the
original mixing and mastering dudes were totally incompetent.

geoff

"Martin Tillman" wrote in message


and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So,
the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a
remix done today by the same people, probably.

But none of these variations are remixes (apart from the 5:1 toys). We are
talking about different *masters* of the same mix. Some EQed, some maybe
'restored', some (such as MFSL ?) left pure but treated scrupulously, as
with kid-gloves.

geoff

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:26:52 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote:

and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end conditions. So,
the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different to a
remix done today by the same people, probably.

But none of these variations are remixes (apart from the 5:1 toys). We are
talking about different *masters* of the same mix. Some EQed, some maybe
'restored', some (such as MFSL ?) left pure but treated scrupulously, as
with kid-gloves.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that.

To make it crystal clear, my point is that I'm fully prepared to accept
DSOTM sounding different to the original master IF it is REMIXED by Alan
Parsons and/or Pink Floyd. Anything else is a barstardisation.

Oh, by the way, have you seen the screenshot?

Yup, and it's utterly meaningless. Now, *you* might prefer all music
to be reduced to 'normalised' pop-culture crap at maximum loudness,
but the *artists* likely thought that not all music is *supposed* to
peak at 0dB FS. For you to even *dream* that you have a fraction of
the mastering ability of MFSL, is truly breathtaking arrogance. I
guess your volume control goes up to 12..................

But surely you can see that just by looking at the screenshot that I
have done nothing to the music. It's the same both ways. It only
*looks* different when really it is not. If you think my version is
"too loud" then turn down the volume. It's that easy.

BTW, I have seven versions of DSotM on vinyl and CD, and the MFSL CD
is my preferred version. Of course, I haven't yet heard the
surround-sound SACD, and it's well-known that DS was *intended* for
multi-channel performance.

Yes, I've never heard the original quad but clearly it was not intended
for stereo. The SACD version will be a welcome and long-overdue correction.

You seem to be totally unaware that the dynamic range of the *music*
is only some 70-75dB at most, hence it's utterly pointless for some
clown like you to come along and insist that the last half-dozen dB of
the 93dB of a CDs natural range *has* to be employed.

You're failing to understand my purpose for the normalization.

For some bozo to attempt to 'normalise' all his music to some
notional -10dB average while avoiding peak clipping is an utterly
disgusting barbarity.

For my purpose in having done so, it actually makes perfect sense really.

I hate to think what you'd do with Beethoven's 'Moonlight' Sonata....

Oh, well, naturally, I'm pump that up even more.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Yes, I do remember that, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, I never
got to hear it. What were the final results? Did anyone ever report in
as having destroyed their Polks with one of those things? I never found
out about it one way or the other. But, man, were those the days!

Almost twenty years ago I blew out one of the tweeters on my
Warfdale's with Flim And The BB's "Tricycle" CD, one of the
earliest. I had no idea what dynamic range meant until
then. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You clearly don't understand what's happening here. Pumping up the
level on CD will have *no* effect on masking,

You clearly don't understand that I've never even *hinted* that it
would. My focus in this regard is in relation to preventing problems
associated with the Absolute Threshold of Hearing (which, incidentally,
sounds to me as if it could be the title of a Pink Floyd bootleg).

and excess levels will clip, whether on CD or MD.

But there are no excess levels which clip in my normalized "remaster".
This is clearly evident in the screenshot which you didn't see.

Data compression is used on MD because it
*has* to be, not because it's a good idea.

Given the actual purpose for the existence of MD in relation to those
who use MD, it is a good idea. Your perception of the purpose and
usefulness of that format is obviously restricted within the confines of
a very small box. MiniDisc isn't just for music. And audiophiles have
for years been known to get snooty with regard to certain *cassette
tapes* which are far worse than MiniDiscs in *all* respects.

Why are you using MDs as a source in the first place?
CDs are fundamentally superior.

You're thinking strictly in academic terms here; certainly not practical
ones.

ATRAC is widely regarded as superior,

That's nice to know because my extended experience with MiniDisc
recording and my "gut instinct" both seem to confirm this.
Unfortunately, it is also my experience with encoding my own MP3s from
my own CDs that have me believing that "louder is better".

but they both work in the same basic way.

Are you sure of this? In terms of psychoacoustic filtration of sounds
which are deemed "too weak to be heard" are they the same?

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You *cannot* increase the average level of a piece of music
(while avoiding clipping) without affecting the dynamics of the piece.

If the levels of the original peaks are as far from Full Scale as the
peaks of MFSL's DSoTM CD are I can. As can be clearly seen in my
screenshot, I easily increased the average level of the WAV encompassing
that entire album by +4.5dB and introduced no limiting, compression, or
clipping to the waveform of the work.

This is not simply a matter of comparing the highest peak with the
lowest trough,

I didn't compare the highest peak to the lowest trough. If anything, I
compared the levels of the highest and lowest peaks; both of which are
located above 0dB.

but of observing the *transfer curve* which determines the relationship
of loud and quiet passages.

I *think* I've just used different words to describe the same thing.

In order to 'normalise' to a different average level, you must be
changing something, yes?

Correct. It's called "the amplitude" (and nothing more). This is
important when working with lossy compression schemes which employ, in
part, methods of psychoacoustic filtering designed to remove frequencies
from sound sources which are "too quiet to be heard" by the human ear.

If it's not a simple matter of increasing the level of the entire CD
(aka turning up the volume control),

My screenshot reveals that that is in fact all that I have done with the
original WAV.

then you are clearly messing with the internal dynamics, and
introducing a form of 'soft limiting'. This should be obvious.

Where in the screenshots that I have provided do you find any evidence
that 'soft limiting' has indeed been applied to the original WAV? I
don't believe it has. If it had been, your point would be valid.

If *you* like the sound of that, then fine,

No, I like the sound of my MP3 after I've amplified the original WAV as
opposed to the sound of an MP3 encoded directly from the original WAV.

but please don't jump onto this forum crowing that you've 'whopped
the ass' of MFSL, because that just makes you look like a brain-dead
ten-year-old with a new toy.

Whoops! Looks like I've been outed!

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Martin Tillman wrote:

However, ignoring what kit the end product is to be used on when
mixing and mastering is silly,so recordings made when 33rpm vinyl was
king took into account the limitations of the medium, in the same way
as mixing for the cinema, mixing for TV (which is what I do), mixing
for CD and mixing for shellac, all take into account the end
conditions.

Just as I am attempting to take into account my own "end conditions" by
normalizing an original MFSL wav ... which, btw, I will agree is
probably just fine for being heard straight from the CD with the volume
cranked up. I do believe that so many years ago when I first listened
to the 1994 Capitol remaster which more closely resembles my own
"normalized MFSL" WAV, I pulled a Joe Sixpack and compared both discs at
the same volume setting in an effort to eliminate that variable while
attempting to compare the fidelity of each disc in relation to the
others. Naturally, the Capitol disc "won" and the MFSL CD was relegated
to the dungeon.

So, the original mix for Dark Side of The Moon would sound different
to a remix done today by the same people, probably. That's OK by me,
but bunging it through some 'normaliser' (which, as evidenced by the
screenshots, also buggers the dynamic range (so it isn't actually a
'normaliser anyway, by definition) ), is absolutely not on.

Yes, I do believe it's quite clear now that the li'l Linux app named
"normalize" can be made to do more than just normalize in a pure sense -
which, btw, is not to imply that it *always* does more either.

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Martin Tillman wrote:

Eh? You blind too?

Yeah, I'm blind.

Not only have you reduced the dynamic range (which normalisation doesn't
do, so you are not normalising), in some places you have actually
INVERTED the dynamic range!!!

To give you a clue(!), look at the peaks around 11 minutes and 24.5
minutes. In the original the peaks are higher at 24.5 than at 11.
You've made the peaks at 11 higher than at 24.5!

*This* is actually more along the lines of the form of analysis I was
hoping to garner by way of posting the screenshots. Thanks.

I believe I see what you're seeing, however, given the obviously compact
visual nature of that screenshot, every peak you see in the image is not
necessarily being rendered *exactly* as it in reality may be.

Such comparisons will certainly require a more exploded view for more
accurate analysis.

My purpose in posting that particular screenshot was to illustrate the
bogus nature of the charges being hurled against me for introducing
clipping, limiting, compression and reduced dynamic range after having
merely adjusted its amplitude +4.5dB (which brings its loudness more in
line with that of Capitol's 1994 remastered edition.)

You can see my full-width screenshot of Capitol's remastered waveform
here if you still think it might be worth a look as far as comparing
their botch-job to mine:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...4_Remaster.png

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-

Lord Hasenpfeffer:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In order to 'normalise' to a different average level, you must be
changing something, yes?
Correct. It's called "the amplitude" (and nothing more). This is
important when working with lossy compression schemes which employ, in
part, methods of psychoacoustic filtering designed to remove frequencies
from sound sources which are "too quiet to be heard" by the human ear.

Got an idea to test your psychoacoustic threshold theory..

1. Encode an MP3 from the normalized wave.
2. Encode an MP3 from the original source.
3. Use MP3Gain to do an MP3-native 'scale factor edit' to increase the volume of the quiet MP3
to match that of the normalized MP3 as closely as possible (it'll help if you know exactly how
much you raised the volume of the normalized wave).
4. Compare.

-StArSeEd
--
dchub://tsphub.dyndns.org:1979
IRC EFnet #smashing_pumpkins
Email: am
ICQ UIN: 1711589

Since you're still crossposting why not add rec.audio.pro to the list
and see what they think?

I like watching a good train wreck.....