Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

David Looser wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
David Looser wrote:

The relevance is that however quiet a studio when empty, put people in it
and the noise level rises appreciably even if they aren't doing anything
in particular (let alone performing). People are surprisingly noisy things,

what with the heartbeat, blood-flow, breathing, digestion etc., if they
move you get the rustle of clothing. But in an anechoic chamber that noise
is
absorbed.

But that's part of the *performance*, not the *noise*.

New goal posts you see.

So you think the listener *wants* to hear the performer digesting his
breakfast?

I'd hope he'd have got past that point. Might even have had a bowel movement.


Personally I'd rather listen to tape hiss

Removing content.


any day.

And your age is ?

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"samvaknin"


** **** off - nut case TROLL

Yet another ASD ****ed pile of sociopathic, sub human, genetically defective
VERMIN.


IOW - a typical wog.




..... Phil

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

The noise floor of a well-made recording is on the
order of 75-80 dB.

Have you gone completely MAD ?

I can beat you by easily 50dB.

Do you do all your recording in an anechoic chamber
then?

What do you think the noise floor of a competently
designed studio is ?

30-ish dB.

Good Lord ! You're WAY off the mark. 30dB is NOISY to
me. I'm talking about proper commercial high-end music
recording facilities that have cost MILLIONS to build.

That sounds more like European-style recording, not U.S. style recording.

You said "competently-designed", not SOTA.

Ah well ... different base of reference I guess.

I've been in some of the best studios in Detroit. One of them shared a
building with an auto body repair shop. Go figure. Of course the most famous
studio in town and arguably the most productive was built in two wood frame
houses, side-by-side on a busy street. Several were built in suites in
typical industrial parks.

You need to visit some top London studios I know. The
silence is deafening.

Most studio music is made in far lesser studios.

Not top chart or rock and roll music.

Yes, number one hits. Top 40, top 100.

Orchestral's
another ball game entirely of course since it depends on
the venue..

Detroit's Orchestra Hall is one of the best in the world, for live
performances, and recording. It is a pretty quiet room. Well, if you keep
the people out of it. I've had numerous chances to audition it both ways.

Also, a lot of that silence goes away after you add
living, breathing musicians. Just sitting there, they
make noise.

But that's part of the *recording*.

It follows the spectral trends of red noise. If you have enough musicians,
the noise floor they produce is just as random as anything. Noise due to air
turbulence can be wonderfully random stuff.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
WTF no-one chose a sensible sampling frequency and a half sensible
bit depth is forever beyond me.

20 bit and 60 kHz would have done nicely.

It was designed around the semi-pro video recorders of the day.

Not at all. Both Ampex and 3M had reel-to-reel digital recorders with
higher sampling rates.

Which part of 'semi-pro' did you miss?

What has 'semi-pro' got to do with decent music production ?

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
30-ish dB.

Good Lord ! You're WAY off the mark. 30dB is NOISY to me. I'm talking
about proper commercial high-end music recording facilities that have
cost MILLIONS to build.

You need to visit some top London studios I know. The silence is
deafening.

With the ventilation running?

Yes. They learnt how to fix that easily 30 years ago.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


In article ,
John Phillips wrote:

On 2008-06-19, Alan White
wrote:

Dither was certainly used in the BBC thirteen channel
PCM coders used for the BBC radio distribution network
in 1972(?)

In which case the speculation I have occasionally seen
on the web that some early CDs lacked dither is probably
inaccurate.

There's a balance between the required dither and the largest nonlinearity
in the recording chain. In another post I described the DAC in the CDP-101
which is AFAIK typical of digital equipment of that time and just before it.
It was prone towards having a non-monotonic change in the middle of its
dynamic range.

The CDP 101 used a fixed voltage divider, presumably made up of selected or
trimmed resistors. Other digital equipment of the day, such as a widely-used
digital recorder made by 3M, had an field adjustment. Anything that can be
adjusted in the field can be misadjusted in the field! This recorder was the
guilty party in the well-known "Bop 'Till You Drop" fiasco.

Not necessarily. The fact that some people knew what
dither was, and why it might be required, does not
guarantee that everyone making every CD falls within this
class of people.

Pretty much. The recordists may not have had a clue, but the people who
designed and built the equipment were well-informed. The problem was
equipment that was reasonably well-designed, but breakable or broken.

Although they may well have been saved
by the noise levels on the original analogue tapes where
they were used as the source. :-)

That, too. The 3M recorder's nonlinearity was around -48 dB which is
unlikely to be helped by self-dither. Nonlinearities in the bottom bits were
likely to be helped by self-dither. In this day and age, a reliable error in
monotonicity can be fixed using a DAW.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger"

130 dB takes an aircraft carrier launching jets, etc.


** Stick a mic right up against the skin of a snare drum
- then get an ape man type drummer to hit the drum as
hard as he can.

The exception does not disprove the rule.

It's insane, but so are all of Graham
Stevenson's bizarre points.
Cos he is a total nut case.

Wake up Arny.

I warned you about " TT" ages ago and you ignored me.

No I didn't.

I like playing with dumb, aggressive animals.

The best fun I ever had involved a 12 foot male alligator, quote visibly in
heat, and an 8 foot 2x4 at our missile site down in the Everglades. By the
time the boys from the park showed up with their rope and pickup truck, he
was unmolested but a pretty tired-out little puppy dog.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Many acoustic instruments can produce nearly 130dB close
up. Why do you think rock drummers go deaf first ?

Because of sustained loudness above 100 dB.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

I'll bet you close miking a brass section wouldn't be far
off peaking in that area.

Been there, done that. It isn't *that* loud. Not 130 dB.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Eiron" wrote in message

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Yes you can when it's really good and it'll be 10-12
dBA. Not all parts of
cities are that noisy and it's amazing what clever
construction methods can
do.

The biggest problem is keeping the noise of the air
conditioning down actually.

Agreed. I've recorded in several expensively-built and appointed venues
where the roar of the HVAC was maybe 45 dB down in a coincident mic
recording. I've also recorded in some venues where many unecessary expenses
were spared, and had a room that seemed to be dead quiet until the people
showed up.

Strange that this should come up. Just yesterday I was
listening to Haitink's recording of Vaughan Williams no
3 (recorded in Abbey Road No 1. in 1986 IIRC) the ventilation noise was
quite
noticeable, and on Audacity seemed to be about -45 dB.
What surprised me was that this noise was maintained
between movements and even between works. Presumably the
engineer drops some wild sound in the silences
deliberately. This seems to be good practice, to me the
noise was not troublesome, just 'ambience'. Had it faded
in and out then I think it would irritate. Is that standard practice? and
have they fixed the
ventilation since? Roger Thorpe

I was just listening to Fireball by Deep Purple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireball_(album)

"It was recorded at various times between September 1970 and June 1971. It
would become the first of the band's three UK #1 albums."

If you turn up the volume you can just hear the noise of the
Olympic Studios air conditioning before Ian Paice starts
drumming.

Apparently these recordings were made in studios of the kind that I am
familiar with, not the ones that Graham believes are in general use. ;-)