On 23 Jun 2003 13:38:43 -0700, (Davie Doodle) wrote:

give better sound, and be less expensive over-all.


In actual tests, with music people can't tell the difference between
the source and a MD recording. They can tell the difference with test
signals.

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_md.htm

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Thank God! I think you've finally and quite clearly defined the
problems we're having in this discussion!

wrote:

I don't know if you guys are having a semantic argument here, but from
my perspective, the very act of suppressing a peak IS clipping.

OK, this makes perfect sense.

Except that it is not the use of the word that is standard
across the recording industry. Clipping is what happens
when you boost the level without regard to what happens to
the peaks. They get "clipped" off flat at 0 dB full scale.

Normalization is boosting the level by the amount that will
bring the the highest peak in the region or the file to 0 dB
full scale.

Limiting is compression operation which changes the
dynamics. The level is not changed but instead the peaks
are held below a limit by a process of applying negative
gain by an amount that's a function of the momentary signal
level so as to keep the peaks below a given limit without
clipping them off. If it is too aggressive it will
introduce audible harmonic and intermodulation distortion.
Following that you can increase the level by the amount of
the limit to normalize. There should be a standard term for
increasing the gain while applying a 0 dB full scale limit
but there isn't that I've ever seen.


This "wrap-around" phenomenon is what I have so far been referring to as
"clipping".

I've seen "wrapping" used. You don't see that much any
more. I'm surprised Audacity retains it. It can speed the
performance of increasing the level though by eliminating
the need for an overflow check in the multiplication loop
but few DAW's still have that option.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Understanding how to use the software to achieve desired results and
understanding the jargon used to describe the process are not
necessarily interdependent requirements of the experience overall.

Unless you wish to communicate about it with others.

Onion other hand, there's a good chance that I already do understand
what "RMS" is without actually recognizing the acronym. What exactly do
the letters represent?

Root Mean Square. If you square every sample in the file,
add all those numbers up, divide by the number of samples
and take the square root you get the RMS of the file. It is
a measure of its overall loudness. -12 dB is pretty hot.


I honestly think the reason why the older CDs sound as bad as they do is
because audio processing software such as "normalize" hadn't been
invented yet at the time they were manufactured.


If you think that louder is better. The process of
squeezing the dynamics of the music to get that extra
loudness introduces distortion (which may actually "enhance"
some kinds of music to some listeners) and generally makes
it less interesting. There is a growing sentiment among
recording professionals that it is exactly this process of
squeezing the dynamics for the sake of loudness that is
making music less and less interesting and faithful to what
was recorded and there is a growing movement away from it.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

I think a great deal of the problem with this discussion revolves around
either my misuse or everyone else's misunderstanding of my use of the
terms "dB" and "dBFS".


It would behoove you to learn the standard usage of the
terms for purposes of communication. That is pretty much
why they were invented.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:

Except that it is not the use of the word that is standard across the
recording industry. Clipping is what happens when you boost the
level without regard to what happens to the peaks. They get
"clipped" off flat at 0 dB full scale.

Yes, thank you. As of earlier today I have now correctly adopted this
term to describe that phenomenon.

Normalization is boosting the level by the amount that will bring the
the highest peak in the region or the file to 0 dB full scale.

OK, I've been using the term "normalization" to describe *everything* I
do with the "normalize" application. I was not aware that the term
"normalization" applies *only* to when you bring the highest peak to
0dB. That's what the application does to a WAV *by default* with no
additional, custom level or gain adjustment specifications.

There should be a standard term for increasing the gain while
applying a 0 dB full scale limit but there isn't that I've ever seen.

How about "over-normalization" (for lack of anything better)?

So when I opt to "over-normalize" the level of a WAV to my preferred
"2dB hotter" setting than what the application would do by default, I am
no longer "normalizing" the WAV but doing something else to it instead
which really doesn't have a name. Hmmm...

Limiting is compression operation which changes the dynamics. The
level is not changed but instead the peaks are held below a limit by
a process of applying negative gain by an amount that's a function of
the momentary signal level so as to keep the peaks below a given
limit without clipping them off. If it is too aggressive it will
introduce audible harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Following
that you can increase the level by the amount of the limit to
normalize.

So if, by definition, "limiting" requires no change in level - and only
offers peak suppression at some artificial threshold, wouldn't this
"over-normalization" thing that I've been doing just be called
"compression" since it is a combination of "boosting the level" while
the "clip all peaks at 0dB" rule?

I've seen "wrapping" used.

OK, so is "wrapping" the officially factory-authorized industry standard
term that's used to describe that effect?

I had previously been calling *that* effect "clipping" because when you
hear it it kinda makes a harsh, audible "clipping noise"! I thought
"clipping" was in reference to the sound that "wrapping" makes, not to
the process of flattening the peaks at 0dB.

You don't see that much any more.

It doesn't seem to have much use even as a rude sound effect.

I'm surprised Audacity retains it.

My wife asked me today what possible purpose it could serve - and I
could not provide an answer.

It can speed the performance of increasing the level though by
eliminating the need for an overflow check in the multiplication loop
but few DAW's still have that option.

Yeah, maybe that could have been useful in the stone age but not any longer.

It could* be useful if you just want to do a quick test to see roughly
how many peaks are gonna get clipped if you do a certain experimental
thing with your WAV. Then if you don't like that result you could
"undo" and try again repeatedly until you get it way you want it.

Maybe?

Myke

Bob Cain wrote:

It would behoove you to learn the standard usage of the
terms for purposes of communication. That is pretty much
why they were invented.

But I already have four hooves!

There's no room for anymore. ;-)

Myke

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
..

dB or dBFS?

dB is a relative term, and by itself means nothing.

dBFS is decibels relative to a real figure, relating to the analogue level
represented by a digital word at "all 1's" .

dBV, dBM, and dBU are other varieties of dBs refernced to a specific actual
voltage/power.

Read a book.

geoff

I can see you're growing as tired of this as I am, so I'll make this brief.

Geoff Wood wrote:

dB is a relative term, and by itself means nothing.

Correct.

dBFS is decibels relative to a real figure, relating to the analogue level
represented by a digital word at "all 1's".

Relative to the analogue levels of "all bits on" which is
1111111111111111 or 111111111111111111111111
depending on whether you're using 16-bit or 24-bit resolution.
No problem there.

I think my last question at this time, then, is this:

If the WAV of a sine wave was normalized (i.e. maximum peak just below
0dB, no clipping) and the "level" of that WAV was -12dBFS, would the
bisector (i.e. the average level) of the sine wave be located 12
decibels below 0dB?

Myke

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

If the WAV of a sine wave was normalized (i.e. maximum peak just below
0dB, no clipping) and the "level" of that WAV was -12dBFS, would the
bisector (i.e. the average level) of the sine wave be located 12
decibels below 0dB?

Maybe something like -12dB, yes. But specify 'average level', because the
'level' is ~0dB.

geoff

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:


If the WAV of a sine wave was normalized (i.e. maximum peak just below
0dB, no clipping) and the "level" of that WAV was -12dBFS,

Here's were what dB is relative to begins to come into the
picture. A sin wave that is normalized is defined as 0 dBFS
(usually.) To clarify (or perhaps confuse) things, if you
consider full digital scale to be +/- 1.0 and do the RMS
calculation I mentioned on that normalized sin you will get
a value of .707 (sqrt(2)/2). This means that dBFS is the
average RMS value of the signal relative to .707. I.e.,
considering samples to have the range +/- 1, square all
their values, take the average and then take the square root
of that. Call that number N. Then the level of the file in
dBFS would be:

20*log10(N/.707)

If a signal is -12 dBFS (averaged over its whole length)
then you can go backwards to the to its average RMS level
as:

(10^(-12/20))*.707 - .1776

dB is always 20 times log base 10 of the ratio of two
things. The thing on the bottom is what it is relative to.
dBu for example is voltage relative to .775 V (for
historical reasons). dBV is voltage relative to 1 V. dBA
is sound pressure relative to 2E-5 Pascals.

would the
bisector (i.e. the average level) of the sine wave be located 12
decibels below 0dB?

The average level of a sin is zero and zero is -inf dB. Now
you are thinking about instantaneous rather than average RMS
values. An instantaneous level that is 12 dB below another
is 1/4 of the other. Confused yet? :-)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:

How about "over-normalization" (for lack of anything better)?

Nah, too long. :-)

Yah, that's what I figgered you were gonna say.

Well, it can be thought of as limit-normalize so how about
"limitize"? :-)

Aha! I like that. Limitize it is!! You readin' this, Geoff???? We're
gonna start callin' it "limitize"! And you don't even have to read a
book to understand what we're sayin'!

"Compression" is a gentler form of limiting. The process
is actually nearly the same. Limiting is compression with
a certain form of gain function.

Hmmm... The way I've heard it described in the past, I'd think
compression was more "violent" than limiting because, as I understand
it, it involves both "lowering the ceiling" *and* "raising the floor"
whereas limiting only affects things topside.

[Wrapping is] so rare now that nobody calls it much of anything.

Ha! Rare for you maybe. I've encountered it a *lot* because I've
always been working with the "Don't allow clipping" box checked!

I use "undo" for that kind of thing all the time. I'm not
sure the speed gained by not checking for overflow is worth
the effort of turning it on and off.

No, I wouldn't do it just for the speed increase. I just think that
during test runs prior to undo's, the wrapped values would make it
easier to visually locate ranges containing peaks that would otherwise
be subject to clipping in the other mode. I mean, "wrapped" samples
make for some pretty big "mountains" and "valleys" in the middle of some
otherwise mere "rocky terrain".

Myke

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Got that too. Clipping is one, specific, pre-defined form of hard
limiting. One could artificially lower the "ceiling" to supress all
peaks from exceeding 1dB (or any other value) below the threshold of
clipping and the term "clipping" would no longer apply - even though the
peak envelopes would still have flat tops.

No! No! No! If it's got flat tops it's clipping no matter
what level the clip is at. Limiting is a more gentle
approach that keeps peaks below a certain limit without
chopping them off flat.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

OK, guys and gals, gather 'round and read 'em and weep!

I have two different versions of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon"
CD. I have ripped WAVs of all of the tracks from both of these discs.
I have examined and compared their respective "peak" and "level"
readings. For testing purposes, I have normalized a copy of one of the
tracks by +4.5dB to attain my personally preferred level of -10dBFS, and
I have normalized an additional copy of the same track by what is to me
a deliberately unreasonable amount of +10dB. I have also made
screenshots of all three of these files while they were simultaneously
imported into 'Audacity' so that side-by-side comparisons of the
differences that "normalize" can make are visually obvious.

Note that in none of the three instances did "normalize" *clip*
anything. Instead it merely *limited* the loudest peaks where necessary
in an apparent attempt to preserve the characteristics of the original
waveform as much as it possibly could.


Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab / Ultradisc II
==========================================
[mykec@sillygoose PFDSMFSL]$ normalize -nb *.wav
Computing levels...
level peak
-22.5712dBFS -10.6335dBFS track01.cdda.wav
-20.5430dBFS -9.3433dBFS track02.cdda.wav
-17.6751dBFS -8.1199dBFS track03.cdda.wav
-18.9479dBFS -7.8896dBFS track04.cdda.wav
-18.5242dBFS -7.6373dBFS track05.cdda.wav
-15.7739dBFS -4.9832dBFS track06.cdda.wav
-17.1860dBFS -6.1509dBFS track07.cdda.wav
-16.3045dBFS -4.7547dBFS track08.cdda.wav
-16.4466dBFS -5.5207dBFS track09.cdda.wav
-14.5302dBFS -4.4229dBFS track10.cdda.wav
-17.1589dBFS average level
5.158868dB volume adjustment


Looks to me here that the guys over at MFSL who mastered this version of
"Dark Side" didn't have a clue about what they were doing. Not one of
the peaks on this entire CD even comes *close* to approaching 0dB!


Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Capitol, Digital Remaster; (P)1992,(C)1994
==========================================
[mykec@sillygoose PFDSDR]$ normalize -nb *.wav
Computing levels...
level peak
-15.5109dBFS -3.3526dBFS track01.cdda.wav
-12.5016dBFS -3.2019dBFS track02.cdda.wav
-13.9399dBFS -2.2710dBFS track03.cdda.wav
-13.4255dBFS -2.4928dBFS track04.cdda.wav
-11.6618dBFS -0.2804dBFS track05.cdda.wav
-13.7878dBFS -3.1469dBFS track06.cdda.wav
-12.8113dBFS -0.9773dBFS track07.cdda.wav
-13.8615dBFS -2.4098dBFS track08.cdda.wav
-11.7779dBFS -1.6673dBFS track09.cdda.wav
-12.9274dBFS average level
0.927362dB volume adjustment


Ah, that looks much better. No wonder I always thought this remastered
sounds a heckuvalot better than that crappy old "Ultradisc II" edition!

Oh, and what's that???!! An average "batch level" of -12.9274dBFS for
the entire disc? Hmmm... Isn't that curiously close to my personally
preferred target level of -10dBFS? I think it is!

Now, since I've taken the time to rip these WAVs for this little
exercise, I think I'll normalize 'em just a little - not too much! - and
get busy with the encoding after that so that I can add them to my ever
growing personal library of MP3s.

Meanwhile, as I'm off doing that... Take a gander at these two nifty
screenshots which reveal exactly what "normalize" was able to do with
that sucky, old, MFSL version of track 10, otherwise known as "Eclipse".

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

Note that by simply boosting MFSL's original level for that particular
track from what it is to my personally preferred loudness of -10dBFS,
that *NO CLIPPING* was performed and the overall dynamic range of the
entire song was actually significantly *INCREASED*!!!

This is why I say that with "normalize" I have discovered a way to
breathe new life into the sound of older CDs and make them sound more
like modern, digital remastered editions!!! Now, if *I* can do this,
why can't the stupid, friggin' "music industry" do it at the
"professional" level as well *before they sell us something less*?!?!

I'm tellin' ya - even if I don't yet fully understand everything that
I'm doing with these WAVs and even though I know I don't fully
understand all the jargon that's required to communicate my thoughts as
effectively as we all might like, my experience with "normalize" and
with all my WAVs and MP3s convinces me that I'm usually pretty capable
of improving the sound of my commercial CD library by a significant,
non-trivial degree.

So there!

Myke

--

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

Teemu Torma wrote:

Well, if you check some newer pop music, like Michael Jackson's
Invincible, the average level is around -6dBFS, and peaks at 0dBFS.
The sole purpose of this is to make them sound louder in radio than
the other songs. But there's not much dynamic range left, even
though it may not matter in this case.

Yes, I do believe this "follows suit" with my previous comments
regarding "Long View" from Green Day's 1994 CD, "Dookie". All of this
high level, low dynamic range stuff seems to be a common phenomenon of
with music of the '90s. Most of the "loudest CDs" I own seem to kick in
somewhere around 1994 which leads me to suspect that software similar to
"normalize" must have arrived on the mastering scene at some point
around that time - or maybe a few years earlier if one could afford to
buy it. While most CDs mastered prior to that time may have been
mastered "technically correctly", their sonic impact is nowhere near "up
to par" with "today's standards" because of the inexistence of such
software. My efforts to normalize the WAVs from my own CD collection
before encoding them to MP3 is merely an attempt to compensate for this.
And I'm able to derive stunning results from it nearly 100% of the time.

It does not mean that the "professional" is right.

I've learned this! And, believe me, after running around for so many
years having so much blind faith in both the compact disc medium and the
music industry's ability to "get it right" with CD, I'm now learning
just what a fool I've been. When I personally can use nothing more than
a single application such as normalize and make my Eurythmics, "Sweet
Dreams (Are Made Of This)" CD sound nearly as if it's been "officially
digitally remastered" to my ears, I'm blown away!

Check some other remasters, like Pink Floyd's The Wall.
The average level for the album is around -18dBFS.

Yes, I am fanatical about Pink Floyd, "The Wall" and yet the generally
low levels of that particular CD - even with regard to the digitally
remastered version that I own - drives me *up* The Wall! And, in fact,
I'm very near to the time now when I will finally be normalizing it to
-10dBFS as well.

Depends on what you want. If you want to listen a mixed collection
of mp3 files without adjusting volume for each random song, normalize
is one way of doing it, but increasing volume with it does harm the
music (of course, with 128k mp3 does harm it too). Normalizing can
never add anything, it can just take something away.

Y'know, you're a decent person with an obviously respectable point of
view, however, I just conducted some more tests with "normalize" and
both MFSL's older Ultradisc II and Capitol's 1994 digitally remastered
versions of "Dark Side Of The Moon" on CD. I think you'll be surprised
by how much sonic *improvement* the "normalize" application can provide.

I'm going to close this particular reply at this time, but keep an eye
out for my next post to this thread regarding these two Pink Floyd CD
reissues and how they compare. Before/after level readings and
screenshots will be provided!

Myke

--

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

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Got that too. Clipping is one, specific, pre-defined form of hard
limiting. One could artificially lower the "ceiling" to supress all
peaks from exceeding 1dB (or any other value) below the threshold of
clipping and the term "clipping" would no longer apply - even though the
peak envelopes would still have flat tops.


No! No! No! If it's got flat tops it's clipping no matter
what level the clip is at. Limiting is a more gentle
approach that keeps peaks below a certain limit without
chopping them off flat.

OK. Thanks for the clarification. That makes even more sense to me now
than it previously did.

One more clarification. It is possible for the clipping to
occur in the analog chain prior to A/D conversion. Then the
tops won't usually even be flat but will look slanted and
are typically an exponential decay due to lack of DC
response in the analog path. It's still called clipping
when that happens.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:

One more clarification. It is possible for the clipping to
occur in the analog chain prior to A/D conversion. Then the
tops won't usually even be flat but will look slanted and
are typically an exponential decay due to lack of DC
response in the analog path. It's still called clipping
when that happens.

OK. Thanks. Haven't actually run across that phenomenon happenin'
anywhere just yet but I'm sure if I ever do, I'll be remembering your
name!

Myke

--

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

"Myke Carter" wrote in message

I have two different versions of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon"
CD. I have ripped WAVs of all of the tracks from both of these discs.
I have examined and compared their respective "peak" and "level"
readings. For testing purposes, I have normalized a copy of one of the
tracks by +4.5dB to attain my personally preferred level of -10dBFS, and
I have normalized an additional copy of the same track by what is to me
a deliberately unreasonable amount of +10dB. I have also made
screenshots of all three of these files while they were simultaneously
imported into 'Audacity' so that side-by-side comparisons of the
differences that "normalize" can make are visually obvious.


Has it occured to you that part of the intention of the album producer is
that Great Gig In The Sky is not *supposed* to be as loud as Money ? What
you are doing in making your music like MacDonalds - uniformly bland. If
you really love music (as opposed to being an addictive collector/hunter) ,
you should not be doing this sacrilege.


geoff

In article , Myke Carter
wrote:

Teemu Torma wrote:

Well, if you check some newer pop music, like Michael Jackson's
Invincible, the average level is around -6dBFS, and peaks at 0dBFS.
The sole purpose of this is to make them sound louder in radio than
the other songs. But there's not much dynamic range left, even
though it may not matter in this case.

Yes, I do believe this "follows suit" with my previous comments
regarding "Long View" from Green Day's 1994 CD, "Dookie". All of this
high level, low dynamic range stuff seems to be a common phenomenon of
with music of the '90s. Most of the "loudest CDs" I own seem to kick in
somewhere around 1994 which leads me to suspect that software similar to
"normalize" must have arrived on the mastering scene at some point
around that time - or maybe a few years earlier if one could afford to
buy it. While most CDs mastered prior to that time may have been
mastered "technically correctly", their sonic impact is nowhere near "up
to par" with "today's standards" because of the inexistence of such
software. My efforts to normalize the WAVs from my own CD collection
before encoding them to MP3 is merely an attempt to compensate for this.
And I'm able to derive stunning results from it nearly 100% of the time.

Myke

the tools have always been around to squash music into oblivion.. but
somewhere around the '93-'94 era, like you stated, it became "in" to do
it.

the sonic impact is there from older cd's still, turn up the volume
knob.

--
cyrus

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. 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. All of what
you have read from others about my ill-advised use of normalize when
producing MP3s from WAVs from my CDs has been revealed to be an
overflowing crock of ****. And I can and will easily prove this in the
immediately near future.

but somewhere around the '93-'94 era, like you stated,
it became "in" to do it.

Alright. That's it! I'm blamin' Bill Gates! ;-D

the sonic impact is there from older cd's still,
turn up the volume knob.

This from you is ill-conceived too.

Stay tuned and I will *prove* to you soon that your assumption is 100%
totally incorrect.

We still have a lot to learn,

Myke

--

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

You truly are clueless.

What you have with "normalize" is a compressor and expander in addition to
normalizing.

It really is unbelievable that you won't go read what the terms, clipping,
compression, expansion, dynamic range and amplitude actually mean.

While your little god "normalize" may be doing a wonderful job of smashing
or extending all your music into your preferred range of amplitude, it
doesn't mean it is appropriate or desirable to everyone, particularly the
engineer who mastered the CD in the first place.

There is a reason they call it art and not musak.

I'd be quite pleased if you'd go spray this sacrilege on the
www.homerecording.com BBS. There are some folks around that really do know
exactly what normalize does.

Cheers,
Pete

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...

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

In this corner...

Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultradisc II ... "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING"

And in this corner...

Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultradisc II ... "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING"
Simply "normalized" to -10dBFS by Lord Hasenpfeffer (Whoopeee!)

What??? No clipping???
What??? No compression???
What??? No added distortion???
What??? Dramatically *extended* dynamic range???
What... were they smoking?!?!?!

No way!!!

Way!!!

Game over,

Myke

--

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

Pete Carney wrote:

Myke, please go study what clipping, normalization, compression, limiting
and expansion are.

Please go view this screenshot!

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

Myke

--

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

Who after seeing this screenshot will be the first to report back and
honestly tell me that my digitally remastered version of "Dark Side Of
The Moon" is not sonically superior to Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's own
original, gold-plated offering???

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

If this is the kind of shoddy product that MFSL continally puts out to
consumers, I know *I'll* be never buying anything with their name on it
again. Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" is hardly a trivial product!

Myke

--

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

I have looked at your screen shots. You have definitely limited or
compressed the peaks and expanded the range in addition to increasing the
amplitude. You are not clipping. That terms is not referring to what you
are doing Clipping is where it can't be dealt with by your system.
Completely different thing than limiting or compressing a wave. Clipping is
inadvertent trashing of the wave by a systems inability to deal with the
amplitude input.

If you can post two identical *.wav files of the exact time frame. One from
the original and the second from your remastered version. Something that
has a large range in the original, I can show you precisely what it is doing
to the wave. I can even post some screen shots of a few milliseconds of the
wave so you can see.

Your screen shots are not to any scale that can be seen at 72 dpi on even a
22" monitor. Look at the peaks and valleys of the wave over a few second
time frame rather than the whole song.

You can't make music better by doing any of this, you can only adjust it
such that you like the resulting amplitude better, or that your ear/brain
perceives it to be better. Someone else will differ with you. The point is
you are changing the artists work.

I do essentially the same thing with much of the live recordings I've
downloaded. See www.bluegrassbox.com for some spectacular shows in *.shn
format. I will never purport it to be better or any thing but sacrilege.
You are really stepping on some toes when you do so.

It's not bad, just not better. Don't make it out like they ripped you off.
That particular CD may be mastered at exactly the peak of the equipment used
at the time. It actually may sound significantly better on that equipment
the way it was mastered than the way you have it on your equipment.

People spend $10's of thousands of dollars on tube amps and such to
specifically reproduce the sound that older works were mastered with. Some
of them show a marked improvement on that equipment.

Cheers,
Pete

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Pete Carney wrote:

You truly are clueless.

And I've never even *been* to Seattle at that.
Hmmm... How'd that happen?

What you have with "normalize" is a compressor and expander in addition
to
normalizing.

OK???

It really is unbelievable that you won't go read what the terms,
clipping,
compression, expansion, dynamic range and amplitude actually mean.

My best-guesses in a nutshell a

Clipping - flat-topping the peaks (at any level amplitude)

Compression - supressing the amplitude

Expansion - increasing the dynamic range

Dynamic Range - the dB "distance" between the lowest and highest
amplitudes in a recording

Amplitude - the dB "distance" between a peak and the noise floor

While your little god "normalize" may be doing a wonderful job of
smashing
or extending all your music into your preferred range of amplitude,

I notice that you haven't actually cited reference to anything in the
screenshot which I provided at the start of this thread. Did you
actually look at it or are you just shootin' off?

it doesn't mean it is appropriate or desirable to everyone, particularly
the engineer who mastered the CD in the first place.

Since producing that screenshot, I've visually compared the waveform
characteristics my own "normalized remastered edition" of the MFSL "Dark
Side Of The Moon" WAV against that of the 1994 Capitol digitally
remastered reissue and they're damn near identical in terms of amplitude.

In other words, I've now improved MFSL's original WAV to such a degree
that it now compares favourably with Capitol's digitally remastered one.

Naturally this leads me to question why MFSL would bother to sell such
an obviously weak product on a gold plated compact disc? I consider
that to be a gross violation of the public's trust. Somebody's gotta
call them on this - and I guess it won't be you who does it, huh?

There is a reason they call it art and not musak.

Yes, I am a 20-year veteran recording artist in my own right. I am not
new to art.

I'd be quite pleased if you'd go spray this sacrilege on the
www.homerecording.com BBS. There are some folks around that really do
know
exactly what normalize does.

Why don't you go view my screenshot and tell me what the hell you think
is so patently obviously wrong with what I've done to MFSL's original
WAV - and then tell me what's obviously superior about selling an
original recording such as theirs for $25+ to the public on a gold
plated disc. They're CD sounded like **** to me 6 years ago when I
bought it compared to Capitol's remastered reissue. And now I know why!

Duh!

Myke

--

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

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

Who after seeing this screenshot will be the first to report back and
honestly tell me that my digitally remastered version of "Dark Side Of
The Moon" is not sonically superior to Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's own
original, gold-plated offering???


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

If this is the kind of shoddy product that MFSL continally puts out to
consumers, I know I'll be never buying anything with their name on it
again. Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" is hardly a trivial product!


Your screenshot is useless. What did the normalize tell about the peak
value of the disk, and what was the adjustment? And what about audacity
screenshot about those two milliseconds where the peak is?

Teemu

Teemu Torma wrote:

Your screenshot is useless.

The purpose of that screenshot is to demonstrate how - over the course
of an entire album - I have sweetly extended and not at all reduced the
dynamic range of the original audio WAV. To that end, my screenshot is
not useless. As for your other questions about it, however, I can see
your point.

What did the normalize tell about the peak value of the disk,

I'm sure you'll have a really hard time believing this but, I forgot to
re-analyze the resulting WAV for this information before I deleted it.

But I'd be perfectly happy to exactly repeat the process and provide you
with the answer if you'd like.

and what was the adjustment?

+4.5dB.

And what about audacity screenshot about those two milliseconds where
the peak is?

Behold:

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...FSL_Zoom_1.png
http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/20...FSL_Zoom_2.png

These are exploded views of the peak which occurs at approximately the
33 minute mark in my remastered version.

As you can clearly see, I have only improved upon the original WAV form.
In this test, I can detect no damage whatsoever to the integrity of
the original information; only dramatic improvment.

BTW, after normalizing MFSL's original WAV, I compared my results with
that of Capitol's 1994 digitally remastered reissue and found remarkable
similarities.

And that is why I routinely use "normalize" to -10dBFS.

Myke

--

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

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:23:11 -0500, Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

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

In this corner...

Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultradisc II ... "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING"

And in this corner...

Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultradisc II ... "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING"
Simply "normalized" to -10dBFS by Lord Hasenpfeffer (Whoopeee!)

What??? No clipping???
What??? No compression???
What??? No added distortion???
What??? Dramatically *extended* dynamic range???
What... were they smoking?!?!?!

What the **** are YOU on?

You've completely munged the dynamics, that's just so damn obvious, and
you really have no idea that that is what you've done!! Normalise? My
arse.

Don't you comprehend the huge amount of talent, let alone real
understanding of the processes, that went into this? And you come along
with a bit of freeware an no knowledge and preach to us about how you
can magically transform this 'rubbish' into a work of art?

And, I'd hazard a guess that the peaks on the original are -6dBFS
(simply because that's typical of remastering from that period), and
your botch-up goes to odBFS, no matter what your mis-understanding
and/or mis-use of the software leads you to believe, and despite the
lack of any scale on your screenshot.

You really think this is better? You're insane.

How dare you speak as though you are some guru and mislead all those
with little knowledge and much gullibility.

You are now officially a ****wit.

Goodness. I think you may be out of your league here. What you have done it
stupid and worthless in every possible way, except as an experiment to learn
what your software can do. ANY signal processing done to a digital audio
file is destructive in nature. Even changing the volume (as in this case).

Go read some more books on digital audio theory and practice, then consider
what you have done.

- Flint


"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...

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

In this corner...

Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultradisc II ... "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING"

And in this corner...

Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (1973)
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
Ultradisc II ... "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING"
Simply "normalized" to -10dBFS by Lord Hasenpfeffer (Whoopeee!)

What??? No clipping???
What??? No compression???
What??? No added distortion???
What??? Dramatically *extended* dynamic range???
What... were they smoking?!?!?!

No way!!!

Way!!!

Game over,

Myke

--

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

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
Who after seeing this screenshot will be the first to report back and
honestly tell me that my digitally remastered version of "Dark Side Of
The Moon" is not sonically superior to Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's own
original, gold-plated offering???


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

If this is the kind of shoddy product that MFSL continally puts out to
consumers, I know *I'll* be never buying anything with their name on it
again. Pink Floyd, "Dark Side Of The Moon" is hardly a trivial product!


I find it hard to believe that you, especially after all the help offered,
still totally miscomprehend almost everything about music and normalisation.

Do you really think that every *track* is somehow deficient if it isn't the
same loudness as every other track on a CD, and that by normalising it
(whatever method) that you are somehow being clever, or improving the music
(or the dymnamic range).

In fact I can't believe that anybody could be that dumb, and that you must
actually be a USENET troll.

Bye

geoff

"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
Yeah, that's right. So why doesn't Mobile Fidelity Sould Lab have one
too?

I suppose their reasoning is that Pink Floyd fans are all a bunch of
aging boomers who've got money to burn buying gold-plated CDs that sound
like **** and don't know anything else beyond how to pop in a disc,
sit back in a chair and toke just a little bit more.


Becuase MFSL have no business in dicking around with compression on the
source material. Their mission was to give as good as possible a quality
accurate transcription of the original master tape to CD. That includes
retaining the exact dynamic range, compression, EQ, etc that Alan Parsons
left the tape with. .

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:

Do you really think that every track is somehow deficient if it isn't the
same loudness as every other track on a CD, and that by normalising it
(whatever method) that you are somehow being clever, or improving the
music (or the dymnamic range).

In fact I can't believe that anybody could be that dumb, and that you must
actually be a USENET troll.

For Myke's defend I must say that he seems to normalize the whole disk at
once, not individual songs.

Teemu

You are comparing a CD mastered with a Peak of -6dB taken directly from Alan
Parson's master tape to one with a Peak of 0dB taken from the label's
re-mixed master tape. Aside from any differences the tapes may have in EQ
and mix, one is simply louder than the other. If you listen to any CD at one
level then compare it to the same CD with the volume turned up 6dB, the
louder one will sound better.

There have been hundreds of papers and articles written over the years
discussing this very point. With music, louder almost always seems better.

This is why it is so important to balance the levels to less than 0.25dB
when comparing the sound of electronics in ABX tests.

Forget everything you think you may have proven. Erase it from your head.
Then try listening to the Gold CD with the volume turned up 6dB.

- FLINT


"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
...
flint wrote:

Goodness. I think you may be out of your league here. What you have done
it
stupid and worthless in every possible way, except as an experiment to
learn
what your software can do. ANY signal processing done to a digital audio
file is destructive in nature. Even changing the volume (as in this
case).

So you disagree with Capitol's efforts at digitally remastering the Pink
Floyd catalog too? Gee whiz... Their CDs sound phenomenal!


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

Go read some more books on digital audio theory and practice, then
consider
what you have done.

Would you suggest the same to Capitol?

Myke

--

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

Geoff Wood wrote:

I find it hard to believe that you, especially after all the help offered,
still totally miscomprehend almost everything about music and normalisation.

I understand that I am using a program called "normalize" that obviously
does more than just normalize. That's why I tend to enclose the word
"normalize" in quotation marks so often - because I'm aware that it's
not really just normalizing my WAVs.

Do you really think that every *track* is somehow deficient

No. Most every modern (i.e. 1994-present) CD and/or 24-bit digitally
remastered CD in my library requires no "munging" (as you say) - because
their peaks and levels are already the same or "better" than what I
would be able to make them by "normalize"-ing them to -10dBFS. Most
every other CD that I own, however, does need help, yes.

Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1987 "Phantom Of The Opera" CD set is a
particularly notable exception. When I scanned its peaks and levels
with "normalize" I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was already
"perfect". Not bad, I thought, for a CD I've owned since the late 80s
when it was practically still new.

if it isn't the same loudness as every other track on a CD,

Look again at my screenshot. There are *many* alternating loud and soft
passages in "Dark Side". They are of "the same loudness" at all. Where
the music should be subtle it remains subtle. Where it should be
dramatic, it is still dramatic.

It's the MFSL original WAV that is more consistently loud from start to
finish. Their WAV is damn near arrow straight!

and that by normalising it (whatever method) that you are somehow
being clever,

Nah. Not even close.

or improving the music (or the dymnamic range).

Improving the music? Nah. Nobody beats the Floyd.

Improving the dynamic range? I believe so, yes. Is that a bad thing?
Yesterday everyone was telling me how wrong it is to reduce dynamic
range - to which I easily agree. I've never heard anybody complain
about having too much dynamic range.

Back when CDs were new I used to read all the great things about how
it's dynamic range is something like +/-90dB or thereabouts, while that
of the lowly vinyl LP was something like +/-27dB. And there was dancing
in the streets.

In fact I can't believe that anybody could be that dumb, and that you must
actually be a USENET troll.

Please do not reduce yourself to name-calling. I am not a troll.

Myke

--

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

"Teemu Torma" wrote in message
...

In fact I can't believe that anybody could be that dumb, and that you
must
actually be a USENET troll.

For Myke's defend I must say that he seems to normalize the whole disk at
once, not individual songs.


If you look at some of his posts, that is exactly what he is doing. However
he seems to have moderated this slightly wrt his latest DSOTM slant, though
he is still thinking that 4dB difference in peak level is somehow the
difference between caviar and ****.

He also refuses to comprehend that such recordings' dynamic range is limited
by the original source tapes, and that it is not necessary (or desirable)
for every piece of music to utilise all the 96dB dynamic range available on
CD. He has had it explained, been pointed in the direction of clear concise
factual explanations, and still refuses to attempt to comprehend where he is
totally missing the point.

Such stubborness is beyond the realms of likelihood, especially considering
the effort he (misguidedly) puts into his music , and I suspect he is merely
posting these ridiculous outrageous things to prompt responses and get peope
het up (trolling). Then he tries to exacerbate things by starting an
OS-religous war.

Naaa, I give up.

geoff

Teemu Torma wrote:

For Myke's defend I must say that he seems to normalize the whole disk at
once, not individual songs.

THANK YOU, TEEMU! You've got it!

When I rip 10 songs from 1 original CD, I "batch normalize" the entire
set to preserve their original, relative loudnesses in relation to each
other. This I have already explained in this forum on more than four
occasions. I thought this was also highly apparent in the screenshots I
have provided - which is exactly the reason why my initial screenshot
displays the WAV of the *entire* album and not just a single song from
it. Geez.

Onion other hand, whenever I seek to create a "mix-CD" compilation of
songs from various, unrelated sources, I individually "normalize" each
track to create a more-or-less consistent loudness across the entire mix.

Some, however, still insist on ignoring these facts and in so doing feel
justified to label me a "Liniot" and a "****wit" and even a "USENET troll".

Myke

--

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

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

blah, blah, blah

Correct me if I'm wrong but this thread began in alt.audio.minidisc
regarding a simple question about the difference between compression
and normalization. In the context of minidisc where compilation discs
are made from various sources where levels are inconsistent due to the
different ways each track was produced normalization is an accepted
and practical way of balancing levels so that one is not always
turning the volume up or down. Hell, it's minidisc, often duped from
mp3's....at this point the integrity of the original has already been
well compromised.

That's very different from what you propose, and the fact that you've
generated replies in this group out of context due to crossposting to
two other groups hasn't helped make much sense out of it. Assuming
anyone's bother to read them.

flint wrote:
You are comparing a CD mastered with a Peak of -6dB taken directly from Alan
Parson's master tape to one with a Peak of 0dB taken from the label's
re-mixed master tape.

Correct.

Aside from any differences the tapes may have in EQ and mix, one is simply
louder than the other.

Fair enough.

If you listen to any CD at one level then compare it to the same CD
with the volume turned up 6dB, the louder one will sound better.

"The louder one will sound better"... I like that. I think you
understand me better than most when I say "my remastered WAVs sound
better than their source CDs". Because "the louder one will sound
better", yes, thank you.

Louder = more audible frequencies = more clarity in the upper and lower
ranges = livlier, more energetic sounding music = better MP3s = more fun
= more personal satisfaction = my original argument.

There have been hundreds of papers and articles written over the years
discussing this very point.

Obviously, then, many then still prefer "quiet", "dull" and "muddy"
sound, no?

With music, louder almost always seems better.

Almost always, yes. Thank you.

This is why it is so important to balance the levels to less than 0.25dB
when comparing the sound of electronics in ABX tests.

Yes! Because by balancing the levels you eliminate significant
variables which would otherwise mask other less obvious differences.

I can't tell you how sweet it is whenever I encounter two copies of the
same song from two different CDs to simply be able to equalize their
levels (with "normalize") so that I can *then* discern which one of them
is mastered from a cleaner source. I do this constantly while creating
MP3s. Only the "winners" survive. All previously encoded MP3s which
fail in this competition are deleted forever - and I always keep notes
in my MP3 headers which remind me later about the CD from whence it came.

Forget everything you think you may have proven. Erase it from your head.
Then try listening to the Gold CD with the volume turned up 6dB.

Why don't I just make a digital copy of my 1994 Capitol remaster to an
Imation CD-R with the digital input gain turned down to -6dB?

In fact, I think I could even make that my standard practice for *every*
CD copy I create. And then if anyone complains about it, I'll just tell
'em to "pump up the volume" because "it's *supposed* to be that low".
How far d'ya think *that'd* fly? It's the same thing.

No harm, no foul,

Myke

--

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

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

flint wrote:
If you listen to any CD at one level then compare it to the same CD
with the volume turned up 6dB, the louder one will sound better.

"The louder one will sound better"... I like that. I think you
understand me better than most when I say "my remastered WAVs sound
better than their source CDs". Because "the louder one will sound
better", yes, thank you.

Louder = more audible frequencies = more clarity in the upper and lower
ranges = livlier, more energetic sounding music = better MP3s = more fun
= more personal satisfaction = my original argument.

The argument has been whether increasing amplitude in the digital input is a
good thing, not whether louder sounds good. It is the amplifier that makes
the loudness to happen.

Forget everything you think you may have proven. Erase it from your head.
Then try listening to the Gold CD with the volume turned up 6dB.

Why don't I just make a digital copy of my 1994 Capitol remaster to an
Imation CD-R with the digital input gain turned down to -6dB?

In fact, I think I could even make that my standard practice for *every*
CD copy I create. And then if anyone complains about it, I'll just tell
'em to "pump up the volume" because "it's *supposed* to be that low".
How far d'ya think *that'd* fly? It's the same thing.

It would be better thing in my mind. Limiting or even worse, clipping, the
high peaks by increasing the volume makes more harm than the slight amount
of added noise by doing the reverse. I have never seen even a "quiet"
remaster (in pop/rock arena) to not have it's peaks at very close to 0dBFS.

Teemu

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

Correct me if I'm wrong but this thread began in alt.audio.minidisc
regarding a simple question about the difference between compression
and normalization.

You need no correction.

In the context of minidisc where compilation discs are made from
various sources where levels are inconsistent due to the different
ways each track was produced normalization is an accepted and
practical way of balancing levels so that one is not always
turning the volume up or down.

This is true.

Hell, it's minidisc, often duped from mp3's....

Not in my case. I always "dupe" mine from either normalized or "batch
normalized" WAVs (whichever is appropriate for the task at hand). My
WAVs are ripped straight from my own CDs. I also often create my own
MP3s from my own CDs for convenience purposes and for being better able
to judge the fidelities of like songs on different source discs.
Normalizing balances the levels in such cases so that differences in the
source qualities from which both CDs were mastered becomes more readily
apparent.

That's very different from what you propose, and the fact that you've
generated replies in this group out of context due to crossposting to
two other groups hasn't helped make much sense out of it.

I was at first impressed to have found so many technical experts lurkin
about in a MiniDisc newsgroup! I don't know who's responsible for
the crossposting. Certainly not I. However, I am appreciative to have
found such an interesting and diverse cross-section of opinions
regarding what I've been using "normalize" to do with my WAVs. (All
references to "Liniots" and "****wits" and "trolls" aside, of course.)

Assuming anyone's bother to read them.

Based upon some comments I've received from others in
alt.music.minidisc, quite a few of them over there seem to be paying
attention.

Hi everybody!!!

Myke

--

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

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? My preamp has a remote control that I can
use to turn up the volume while sitting in my listening chair. It works
great and I don't get the nasty artifacts that ALL digital processing bring
to the party.

You keep calling the Gold CD inferior simply because the volume is a touch
lower. That is like saying a 60 watt light bulb in inferior to a 75 watt
bulb. Or a 25 watt soldering iron is inferior to a 50 watt soldering iron.
This is not a solid argument. Possibly the program you are using to turn up
the volume on the audio is also adding a form of distortion you really like
to listen to. Maybe it makes the music "crisper" and "sharper" which are two
ways a layman might describe subtle harmonic distortion.

Your argument is weak and you are conviced that you have solved the problem
with every older CD every pressed. Well more power to you. I hope you enjoy
all the work you have in front of you "improving" every CD ever made. But
why try to force the rest of us to agree with you?

If I enjoyed messing with my CDs by altering their sound with digital
processing, I would keep it to myself and enjoy it. But screwing with the
intended results of the producers is nothing I would be proud of.

- FLINT

Lord Hasenpfeffer wrote:

What I wanna know is how kin a li'l ol' guy like me without no edukashun
in such teknickl affars take on such a highly respected giant like
*Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab" with nothing more than a $300 slingshot
(monitor not included) and a pebble named "normalize" ... using as my
test example their own stupidly priced "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING" of
*PINK FLOYD, "DARK SIDE OF THE MOON" and end up spanking their butt like
a newborn baby?

What's wrong with this picture?????

That it's only your own assessment of your remastering.
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. 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. You seem to be the lone voice in the wilderness
saying that we haven't yet begun to sufficiently homogenize
and distort it.

Where do you do the most of your listening?


What you see in that screenshot isn't a "mustagot lucky" one-time
accident either. This is yet another high-profile example of what I
experience on a daily basis with nearly every single one of my "older",
unremastered CDs.

Looking at sound is like dancing about architecture.

BTW, is rec.audio a real group? It's in the headers of
these messages from you but bounces from my news server
which is a pretty complete one.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein