See:
http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
See:
http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

His facts are correct, but he might be missing the point.

Music-only listening does not primarily take place under circumstances that
work well with wide-dynamic range or even natural-dynamic range recordings.
Two common examples are listening in a car, and listening in a business
office.

I'll venture that people listen to music to hear it. Natural dynamic range
recordings might even not be heard at all, part of the time, in the
circumstances I just mentioned.

Ideally, playback equipment would manage the dynamic range of recordings so
that we wouldnt' have recordings that sound good in a car, or in an office,
but sound relatively lifeless under ideal listening conditions. I think this
is technically feasible, and has even been implemented in the mass market a
few times.

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

See:
http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

This is why I've been buying old used cds in hope of avoiding
compression.

Compression doesn't have to sound bad and it won't if used properly, but
add digital clipping to the mix and you've got today's gutless,
fatiguing modern rock sound: Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc. That's one
thing for new recordings, but when remasters get the same treatment to
update the sound it's usually time to complain.

Stephen

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:33:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
See:
http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

His facts are correct, but he might be missing the point.

Music-only listening does not primarily take place under circumstances that
work well with wide-dynamic range or even natural-dynamic range recordings.
Two common examples are listening in a car, and listening in a business
office.

I'll venture that people listen to music to hear it. Natural dynamic range
recordings might even not be heard at all, part of the time, in the
circumstances I just mentioned.

Ideally, playback equipment would manage the dynamic range of recordings so
that we wouldnt' have recordings that sound good in a car, or in an office,
but sound relatively lifeless under ideal listening conditions. I think this
is technically feasible, and has even been implemented in the mass market a
few times.

Notably through the dbx dynamic range expansion line of gear, which
gained some traction in the home audio arena in the late 70s, 80s and
early 90s. Of course, they also made studio compressors/expanders as
well, and still do AFAIK.

This is separate from dbx noise reduction for taping...

"Arny Krueger" said:

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

His facts are correct, but he might be missing the point.

Music-only listening does not primarily take place under circumstances that
work well with wide-dynamic range or even natural-dynamic range recordings.
Two common examples are listening in a car, and listening in a business
office.


OK.


I'll venture that people listen to music to hear it. Natural dynamic range
recordings might even not be heard at all, part of the time, in the
circumstances I just mentioned.


Agreed.


Ideally, playback equipment would manage the dynamic range of recordings so
that we wouldnt' have recordings that sound good in a car, or in an office,
but sound relatively lifeless under ideal listening conditions. I think this
is technically feasible, and has even been implemented in the mass market a
few times.


But surely you're not proposing some kind of "lowest common
denominator" factor in recordings????
Some car audio equipment has already some kind of compression built
in, as to deal with dynamic recordings.
Why would one have to suffer from compressed or even clipped
recordings when listening at home on a good system?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

In article ,
Paul Dormer wrote:

"MINe 109" emitted :

Compression doesn't have to sound bad and it won't if used properly, but
add digital clipping to the mix and you've got today's gutless,
fatiguing modern rock sound: Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc.

I still can't get over "The Hunter" by Bjork. Maybe I had a duff copy.
Had to zoom in *many* times to get away from a solid block in the
waveform editor.. continual clipping.

Wow. I guess she likes that sound. Why does a the sound of a crap club
PA become an ideal for a recording?

Stephen

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

His facts are correct, but he might be missing the point.

Music-only listening does not primarily take place under
circumstances that work well with wide-dynamic range or even
natural-dynamic range recordings. Two common examples are listening
in a car, and listening in a business office.


OK.


I'll venture that people listen to music to hear it. Natural dynamic
range recordings might even not be heard at all, part of the time,
in the circumstances I just mentioned.


Agreed.


Ideally, playback equipment would manage the dynamic range of
recordings so that we wouldnt' have recordings that sound good in a
car, or in an office, but sound relatively lifeless under ideal
listening conditions. I think this is technically feasible, and has
even been implemented in the mass market a few times.

But surely you're not proposing some kind of "lowest common
denominator" factor in recordings????

I'm saying the the recordings should be made with wide/natural dynamic
range, and that playback equipment for use in situations where wide dynamic
range is inappropriate, provide the required compression.

Some car audio equipment has already some kind of compression built
in, as to deal with dynamic recordings.

I'd like to see that become more common.

Why would someone have to suffer compressed or even clipped
recordings when listening at home on a good system?

No, not at all.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

Any comments from the experts?

His facts are correct, but he might be missing the point.

Music-only listening does not primarily take place under
circumstances that work well with wide-dynamic range or even
natural-dynamic range recordings. Two common examples are listening
in a car, and listening in a business office.


OK.


I'll venture that people listen to music to hear it. Natural dynamic
range recordings might even not be heard at all, part of the time,
in the circumstances I just mentioned.


Agreed.


Ideally, playback equipment would manage the dynamic range of
recordings so that we wouldnt' have recordings that sound good in a
car, or in an office, but sound relatively lifeless under ideal
listening conditions. I think this is technically feasible, and has
even been implemented in the mass market a few times.

But surely you're not proposing some kind of "lowest common
denominator" factor in recordings????

I'm saying the the recordings should be made with wide/natural dynamic
range, and that playback equipment for use in situations where wide
dynamic
range is inappropriate, provide the required compression.

That's such a great, obvious idea. Unfortunately, the mass market does not
care.
The last time I spoke to a NYC music "producer", which in that market means
a guy who actually does everything, he had very little job satisfaction. The
execs incessantly demanded that the result play loud.

The biggest part of the problem is they want to get on the radio and
the radio wants it "punchy" to "stand out". They don't give a ****
about listener fatigue.

Robert Morein wrote:

The last time I spoke to a NYC music "producer", which in that market means
a guy who actually does everything, he had very little job satisfaction. The
execs incessantly demanded that the result play loud.

Bingo. The labels often lean on the mastering engineer to
make it L-O-U-D, almost always at the expense of dynamics.
Peak levels contribute little to overall "loudness."
Loudness is conveyed by something more like average or RMS
program level. Peak level on a CD is fixed and the way you
make something louder is by boosting the average/RMS.
Because there's nowhere for the peak to go (due to the fixed
ceiling imposed by the format) we often get to the absurd
situation where the peak is only a wee bit higher than the
average/RMS. And why is this a problem? Because the ratio of
the peak to the average/RMS is what gives a sense of
dynamics. Ergo, "making it louder" with a constrained peak
by necessity decreases dynamics.

(I build digital mastering compressors and limiters and I
want to emphasize that digital dynamics processors don't
kill music; A&R guys kill music).

GZ

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I'm saying the the recordings should be made with wide/natural
dynamic range, and that playback equipment for use in situations
where wide dynamic range is inappropriate, provide the required
compression.

That's such a great, obvious idea. Unfortunately, the mass market
does not care.

That would be marketing/promotion/educational problem.

The last time I spoke to a NYC music "producer", which in that market
means a guy who actually does everything, he had very little job
satisfaction. The execs incessantly demanded that the result play
loud.

Well, what we need is loud players, not recordings that always play loud.

In article ,
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

Robert Morein wrote:

The last time I spoke to a NYC music "producer", which in that market means
a guy who actually does everything, he had very little job satisfaction. The
execs incessantly demanded that the result play loud.

Bingo. The labels often lean on the mastering engineer to
make it L-O-U-D, almost always at the expense of dynamics.
Peak levels contribute little to overall "loudness."
Loudness is conveyed by something more like average or RMS
program level. Peak level on a CD is fixed and the way you
make something louder is by boosting the average/RMS.
Because there's nowhere for the peak to go (due to the fixed
ceiling imposed by the format) we often get to the absurd
situation where the peak is only a wee bit higher than the
average/RMS. And why is this a problem? Because the ratio of
the peak to the average/RMS is what gives a sense of
dynamics. Ergo, "making it louder" with a constrained peak
by necessity decreases dynamics.

(I build digital mastering compressors and limiters and I
want to emphasize that digital dynamics processors don't
kill music; A&R guys kill music).

Or, as a guy on a pro sound forum put it:

"(T)he 'A' and the 'R' don't stand for 'production', 'mastering' or
'telling me how to mix my ****ing album'."

While "no compression" and "no EQ" can be audiophile ideals, in the real
world tasteful use of each can make a big difference.

Hope this helps!

Stephen

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is it about car audio that doesn't
allow for as much of a dynamic range? I do definately agree that my home
system sounds MUCH better than my car system quality-wise, but why is
that? Is it just speaker size, amplifiers, or what?

Just for the record these are my systems:

My home system is a Yamaha AV-80Y amplifier, 220w 4-way Yamaha
towers(NS-A200XT), and a 250w powered 15" cerwin-vega downfiring ported
subwoofer.

Car system: Clarion DB245 head unit, 1000w MTX 15" subwoofer in a bandpass
box on a 1000w Kenwood mono amp. 200w Infinity 2-way 4x6's in front on an
MTX 350w 2-channel amp. 330w Infinity 2-way 6x9's in rear on a 480w Alpine
V12 amp. Interior speakers all crossed-over at 90hz, sub crossed at 90.


The home stereo definately is higher quality, but I love the powerful
punch on the car system.

-Mike

In article
outaudio.com,
"half_eaten" wrote:

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is it about car audio that doesn't
allow for as much of a dynamic range? I do definately agree that my home
system sounds MUCH better than my car system quality-wise, but why is
that? Is it just speaker size, amplifiers, or what?

Noise level! Cars are typically noisier than living rooms, so there's
less dynamic range available.

Stephen

"half_eaten" wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is it about car audio that
doesn't allow for as much of a dynamic range?

Noisy cars. The background noise level in a car runs 65-85 dB @ 70 mph,
while the noise level in your living room is more like 35-45 dB.

I do definately agree
that my home system sounds MUCH better than my car system
quality-wise, but why is that? Is it just speaker size, amplifiers,
or what?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors easy
reproduction of deep bass.

It's not that challenging to make a pretty quiet car.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors easy
reproduction of deep bass.



you have got to be kidding. too many glass surfaces, the listenenr is not
situated
in the ideal listening location, and severe limitations in optimal speaker
locations,
and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors
easy reproduction of deep bass.

you have got to be kidding. too many glass surfaces,

wrong

the listenenr is not situated in the ideal listening location,

wrong

and severe limitations in optimal speaker locations,

wrong

and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.

wrong

Got any more dumb ideas, Art?

Turdborg forgets to wipe himself off of RAO.

and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.

wrong

Got any more dumb ideas, Art?

It doesn't get much dumber than trying to have a reasonable discussion with
you. I'm sure Art will now come to his senses.

BTW, Mr. ****, how come you never call dicky/toony/tor by your favorite
epithet -- that is, "sockpuppet"? You've used it on Scott Wheeler even
though he posts under his own name. Care to explain yourself? ;-)

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


You've used it on Scott
Wheeler even though he posts under his own name. Care to explain
yourself? ;-)

Its so easy, but yet you can't get it, can you Middius?

Scott hasn't always signed his posts as Scott Wheeler. Most of his S888wheel
posts were not signed with the name scott wheeler.

****-for-Brains lied:

BTW, Mr. ****, how come you never call dicky/toony/tor by your favorite
epithet -- that is, "sockpuppet"? You've used it on Scott Wheeler even
though he posts under his own name. Care to explain yourself? ;-)

Its[sic] so easy, but yet you can't get it, can you[sic] Middius?

Scott hasn't always signed his posts as Scott Wheeler. Most of his S888wheel
posts were not signed with the name scott wheeler.

So you were confused? I suppose we can accept that even though it's
obviously a lie. ;-) On the one hand, you were unable, by your own
admission, to figure out what Wheeler does for a living despite numerous,
thuddingly obvious hints he gave you. Also on this hand is your documented
inability to use simple search engines, and of course your intellectually
stunting paranoia, which at times leads you to believe that nonsentient
software applications "lie" to you.

On the other hand, you are mulishly argumentative. You would seemingly
rather dance on your children's graves rather than admit error. Hmm...
tough one. You could be a monstrously obnoxious jackass, or you could be
crazy as a loon.

Getting back to the point, though, is my question:

BTW, Mr. ****, how come you never call dicky/toony/tor by your favorite
epithet -- that is, "sockpuppet"?

Why, Arnii? Why don't you do that? One individual who uses three
pseudonyms, and you gratefully accept everything he says at face value. Why
do you let him slide even though you despise the anonymity of sockpuppetry?

"half_eaten" wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com...
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is it about car audio that doesn't
allow for as much of a dynamic range?

Engine and road noise. If you're sitting in your parking lot with the
engine off, you get plenty of dynamic range. If road noise is, say 50dB,
then you just lost 50dB of dynamic range, because the lowest parts have to
be that loud just to hear them.

I do definately agree that my home
system sounds MUCH better than my car system quality-wise, but why is
that? Is it just speaker size, amplifiers, or what?

Generally home audio is more advanced than car audio - bigger market for
high end stuff. But certainly it's possible to put together a worse
sounding stereo at home than in a car. Also imaging will almost always be
better at home - the room is bigger and the acoustic space is much more
predictable and workable.

The home stereo definately is higher quality, but I love the powerful
punch on the car system.

It's possible to get good bass in a car, mostly due to the small size I
guess and lack of an "imaging component" to bass for the most part.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors easy
reproduction of deep bass.



you have got to be kidding. too many glass surfaces, the listenenr is not
situated
in the ideal listening location, and severe limitations in optimal speaker
locations,
and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.

None of those factors present a problem for bass, only for treble.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors
easy reproduction of deep bass.

you have got to be kidding. too many glass surfaces,

wrong

the listenenr is not situated in the ideal listening location,

wrong

and severe limitations in optimal speaker locations,

wrong

and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.

wrong

Got any more dumb ideas, Art?



yeah, I forgot to assume your vehicle must be an Abrams tank.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"jeffc" wrote in message
. com...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors easy
reproduction of deep bass.



you have got to be kidding. too many glass surfaces, the listenenr is not
situated
in the ideal listening location, and severe limitations in optimal
speaker
locations,
and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.

None of those factors present a problem for bass, only for treble.


I wasn't talking about bass, I was refuting Arny's claim that
"The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise."



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:41:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
?

The car environment is actually pretty good for audio, other than the
noise.
Certainly its well-damped, and the small size of the *room* favors
easy reproduction of deep bass.

you have got to be kidding. too many glass surfaces,

wrong

the listenenr is not situated in the ideal listening location,

wrong

and severe limitations in optimal speaker locations,

wrong

and speakers must be mounted flush to surfaces.

wrong

Got any more dumb ideas, Art?

Be careful - Lionel will get after your ass now.

dave weil a écrit :

Be careful - Lionel will get after your ass now.

The above proves that my remark obliges you to find a new
standard to evaluate your RAO behaviour...

:-D

Well, it is a good environment besides the noise really. I mean, sitting in
the driveway with all the windows up and the car turned off stereo sounds
fantastic. Usually it's cranked so loud on the road it doesn't matter too
much about the noise.

I've been seriously thinking about getting another 15" 1000w MTX and 1000w
Kenwood amp. Insanity to the max! I already have three 1 farad capacitors
in there to help with the peak power consumption. Might have to get
another one or two if I do that.

-Mike

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

****-for-Brains lied:

BTW, Mr. ****, how come you never call dicky/toony/tor by your
favorite epithet -- that is, "sockpuppet"? You've used it on Scott
Wheeler even though he posts under his own name. Care to explain
yourself? ;-)

Scott hasn't always signed his posts as Scott Wheeler. Most of his
S888wheel posts were not signed with the name scott wheeler.

So you were confused?

Just correcting your incorrect claims, Middius. You said that he posts under
his own name, and now Middius you admit that he did not always post under
his name. I predict that you won't let this stand without digging your hole
even deeper.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:18 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

Be careful - Lionel will get after your ass now.

The above proves that my remark obliges you to find a new
standard to evaluate your RAO behaviour...

No it doesn't. If you think real hard, you'll see why.

O debating trade, have mercy on thy servant!

****-for-Brains lied:

BTW, Mr. ****, how come you never call dicky/toony/tor by your
favorite epithet -- that is, "sockpuppet"? You've used it on Scott
Wheeler even though he posts under his own name. Care to explain
yourself? ;-)

Scott hasn't always signed his posts as Scott Wheeler. Most of his
S888wheel posts were not signed with the name scott wheeler.

So you were confused?

Just correcting your incorrect claims, Middius. You said that he posts under
his own name, and now Middius you admit that he did not always post under
his name. I predict that you won't let this stand without digging your hole
even deeper.

Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid, filthy,
moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded, crazy, duplicitous,
egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and dangerous to himself and
others?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid, filthy,
moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded, crazy,
duplicitous, egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and dangerous
to himself and others?

Two words: George Middius.

IKYABWAIBorg sputters and almost dies.

Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid, filthy,
moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded, crazy,
duplicitous, egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and dangerous
to himself and others?

Two words:

As usual, a day late and a dollar short.

Tell us about your "rain coat" adventures, Arnii. Did that man in the car
have his way with you? ;-) Did you ever find the turds, in the snow,
behind the radar's, in Barvaria? ;-) How many races have you won with your
world-class Villager? ;-) Have you figured out why you're so honest and
everybody else in the world is a liar? ;-)

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"George M. Middius" wrote in message



Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid, filthy,
moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded, crazy,
duplicitous, egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and dangerous
to himself and others?


Two words: George Middius.

Too easy !!!

dave weil a écrit :
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:18 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


Be careful - Lionel will get after your ass now.

The above proves that my remark obliges you to find a new
standard to evaluate your RAO behaviour...


No it doesn't. If you think real hard, you'll see why.

If you have thought really hard you wouldn't have missed my
point. :-)

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"George M. Middius" wrote in message



Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid,
filthy, moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded, crazy,
duplicitous, egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and
dangerous to himself and others?


Two words: George Middius.

Too easy !!!

He walked right into it, didn't he?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:11:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:18 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


Be careful - Lionel will get after your ass now.

The above proves that my remark obliges you to find a new
standard to evaluate your RAO behaviour...


No it doesn't. If you think real hard, you'll see why.

If you have thought really hard you wouldn't have missed my
point. :-)

Oh, I didn'tmiss it. I just knew that it was off the mark.

You see, I didn't comment on Arnold's behavior, I commented on YOURS.

I didn't say that he was wrong, after all...

Get it now?

dave weil a écrit :
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:11:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:18 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil a écrit :



Be careful - Lionel will get after your ass now.

The above proves that my remark obliges you to find a new
standard to evaluate your RAO behaviour...


No it doesn't. If you think real hard, you'll see why.

If you have thought really hard you wouldn't have missed my
point. :-)


Oh, I didn'tmiss it. I just knew that it was off the mark.

You see, I didn't comment on Arnold's behavior, I commented on YOURS.

I didn't say that he was wrong, after all...

I understood that... This was my point !!! :-)

Get it now?

Yes, you are really dense...

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger a écrit :

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
om



Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid,
filthy, moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded, crazy,
duplicitous, egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and
dangerous to himself and others?


Two words: George Middius.

Too easy !!!


He walked right into it, didn't he?

George is incredible, he alternates extreme confusion and
crystal clear lucidity... In my opinion they are two. ;-)

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger a =E9crit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger a =E9crit :

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
om



Question for RAO: What's the word for somebody who is stupid,
filthy, moronic, mendacious, imbecilic, disgusting, retarded,
crazy,
duplicitous, egomaniacal, demented, paranoid, depraved, and
dangerous to himself and others?


Two words: George Middius.

Too easy !!!


He walked right into it, didn't he?

George is incredible, he alternates extreme confusion and
crystal clear lucidity...


Is "George" psychotic?


In my opinion they are two. ;-)


Or is there more than one "George"? ;-)