In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:


It often has to be so, a lot of radio is listened to under far less
than ideal conditions where a wide dynamic range would be waste and no
bugger would hear it.

To some extent the pop/rock obsession with level compression goes
hand-in-hand with their wish for LOUDNESS. Hearing curves tend to also
compress at high levels. So to a fair extent, banded level compression
has a result similar to winding up the level of less-compressed
pop/rock. Mimics being able to get a higher level from cheap replay
systems.

In some ways a modern equivalent to balancing everything to make the best
of being played on a Dansette or a tiny speaker.

Never quite understood the fashion for making everything as loud as
possible. Does anyone have replay equipment where it is turned up full -
so it would actually be louder?

I well remember when demos started coming in on DAT rather than cassette.
There was some need to keep the level up on cassette to beat the inherent
background noise - but 'they' did exactly the same on DAT, often to the
point of clipping.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:


It often has to be so, a lot of radio is listened to under far less
than ideal conditions where a wide dynamic range would be waste and no
bugger would hear it.

To some extent the pop/rock obsession with level compression goes
hand-in-hand with their wish for LOUDNESS. Hearing curves tend to also
compress at high levels. So to a fair extent, banded level compression
has a result similar to winding up the level of less-compressed
pop/rock. Mimics being able to get a higher level from cheap replay
systems.

In some ways a modern equivalent to balancing everything to make the best
of being played on a Dansette or a tiny speaker.

Never quite understood the fashion for making everything as loud as
possible. Does anyone have replay equipment where it is turned up full -
so it would actually be louder?

Simple. But it is not a fashion. People construe
"louder" as "better". I am sure we have all tried the
simple test with two identical amps, from a common
source,one just 2dB louder than the other, switched
to drive the same pair of speakers. Listeners seem
to invariably choose the louder of the two.

The same with CD mastering, (and broadcast?)
The phenomenon is not only to do with peak level.
With pop music, perceived loudness is also achieved
by increasing the average level i.e. compression.
The Durrough meter is a very useful tool in this
process. If applied carefully, and in moderation,
compression works. Sadly even when over-applied,
people still seem to prefer it.

I am very happy that for the music in which I am
most interested, Baroque and early Jazz, the finished
mix master is used for CD production without being
subjected to "mastering enhancement"

I have some very good audio clips (no pun intended!)
of the various stages in mastering, including what is
commonly known as "impact" and "spread", and
multiband compression with EQ.

Some tracks peak at -1dB FS and have a
dynamic of 6dB. But they have been
skillfully processed and sound a lot better than
one would expect. Perhaps this would be a
good topic for a new thread?

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

I am very happy that for the music in which I am most interested,
Baroque and early Jazz, the finished mix master is used for CD
production without being subjected to "mastering enhancement"

I have some very good audio clips (no pun intended!) of the various
stages in mastering, including what is commonly known as "impact" and
"spread", and multiband compression with EQ.

Some tracks peak at -1dB FS and have a dynamic of 6dB. But they have
been skillfully processed and sound a lot better than one would expect.
Perhaps this would be a good topic for a new thread?

Probably. However mainly because others may be less careful than yourself!

I just bought a couple of 'new' (i.e. remastered) sets of CDs of classic
Jazz. Both are noticable LOUD and hit the 0dBF led on my meters regularly.
(I'm currently using some old CDRW audio recorders as CD drives. They have
useful meters so show this up.)

I've not checked in detail because I'm otherwise distracted (by the topic
of this thread). But I suspect if I analyse them they will show many peak
or near peak sample values and probably 'overs' in between.

For modern pop/etc if people want loudness (or clipping) as an effect, fair
enough. My problem is when reissues of music that can endure gets messed
about.

BTW coming back on topic. People may find these preliminary results of
interest.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/in...lacresults.png shows a comparison
between the flac and aac streams over a period of 35 mins. The lower (diff)
shows how much *below* the flac audio level the 'difference' between the
two is.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/spectraflacvaac.png shows comparison
spectra for a 1000 sec period. This was mainly to show that the standard HF
rolloff above about 20kHz is present, but also shows the differences
between the two.

For both of the above the versions were time aligned to a sample.

I'm currently trying to get stats on how often 'blocks' of flag fail to
arrive and leave a 'lost' section in the received signal. But these are
rare enough most of the time to make this hard to assess beyond "it does
happen ever now and then". Sadly, a lost 4 sec in the middle of a long
classical work can be a bit of a distraction! So even occasional lost
chunks can be annoying.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

I am very happy that for the music in which I am most interested,
Baroque and early Jazz, the finished mix master is used for CD
production without being subjected to "mastering enhancement"

I have some very good audio clips (no pun intended!) of the various
stages in mastering, including what is commonly known as "impact" and
"spread", and multiband compression with EQ.

Some tracks peak at -1dB FS and have a dynamic of 6dB. But they have
been skillfully processed and sound a lot better than one would expect.
Perhaps this would be a good topic for a new thread?

Probably. However mainly because others may be less careful than yourself!

I just bought a couple of 'new' (i.e. remastered) sets of CDs of classic
Jazz. Both are noticable LOUD and hit the 0dBF led on my meters regularly.
(I'm currently using some old CDRW audio recorders as CD drives. They have
useful meters so show this up.)


I too have a couple of redundant CD recorders, which are very useful for
metering.
My master recorder has a peak hold button which is very useful.

I also have a number of RTW PPMs taken from various consoles. They
have a D conncector for 24VDC, and signal inputs. But my favourite is the
so-called
"table-top" model, the 1206 which has a built in psu, and so just needs an
IEC
mains cable and signal inputs - balanced on XLR +6dBu/1.55V 10k or on
RCA connectors adjustable from 155mV to 30V 47k

https://www.google.fi/search?q=rtw+1...ILd_Is0FnjRMM:

One interesting idea for PPMs is the "matchdead" display - a single red
segment to
show peak, while the green column shows perceived level.

Useful too is the Dorrough range of meters.
Their 40-A is a loudness meter and
found in most mastering suites.

https://www.google.fi/search?q=dorro...7kJ6HlvkM828M:


Iain