Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Method for level balancing LP tracks from various albums
43 views
Skip to first unread message
docsavage20
May 15, 2013, 4:24:57 PM5/15/13
to
I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall, drop it
by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
I tried using RMS normalization with SoundForge, but it provides
inconsistent results. Some tracks sound about matched to each others,
others will be way too loud.
How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
Thanks.
for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall, drop it
by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
I tried using RMS normalization with SoundForge, but it provides
inconsistent results. Some tracks sound about matched to each others,
others will be way too loud.
How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
Thanks.
John Williamson
May 15, 2013, 4:27:24 PM5/15/13
to
You could try something like the (free) Orban Loudness Meter plugin, and
match tracks for the same loudness reading on that.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
geoff
May 15, 2013, 4:58:34 PM5/15/13
to
"docsavage20" <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2470708-eb41-4f88...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
geoff
hank alrich
May 15, 2013, 4:59:44 PM5/15/13
to
docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
> for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>
> There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
> I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
> there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
> pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall, drop it
> by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
That's the best way, and the only one that really works. Many factors
> I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
> for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>
> There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
> I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
> there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
> pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall, drop it
> by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
influence your perception of loudness in music. It is presently very
difficult to build a non-human technical devive with anything like that
capability.
> I tried using RMS normalization with SoundForge, but it provides
> inconsistent results. Some tracks sound about matched to each others,
> others will be way too loud.
>
> How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
>
> Thanks.
listening.
So just listen and make decisions.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
Mark
May 15, 2013, 5:21:45 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 4:59 pm, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
is to look at the meter but instead of looking at the peaks, look at
what you might call the 50% crossing level. That is the level that
the meter goes above for 1/2 the time and below for 1/2 the time. I
find that -9 dBFS is a good set point. I set the levels on final
tracks so that the meter is above -9dBFS for 1/2 the time and below -9
dBFS for 1/2 the time.
For pre-recorded highly compressed material the meter just kinda sits
around -9 most of the time. For more dynamic material it swings
above and below -9. Using this method, I find the "loudness" seems
to match well enough from track to track.
Mark
> docsavage20 <docsavag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
> > for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>
> > There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
> > I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
> > there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
> > pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall, drop it
> > by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
>
> That's the best way, and the only one that really works. Many factors
> influence your perception of loudness in music. It is presently very
> difficult to build a non-human technical devive with anything like that
> capability.
>
> > I tried using RMS normalization with SoundForge, but it provides
> > inconsistent results. Some tracks sound about matched to each others,
> > others will be way too loud.
>
> > How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> They did it by listening, and in the digital age, they do it by
> listening.
>
> So just listen and make decisions.
>
a good seat of the pants method using a meter (digital or analog)
> > I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
> > for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>
> > There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
> > I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
> > there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
> > pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall, drop it
> > by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
>
> That's the best way, and the only one that really works. Many factors
> influence your perception of loudness in music. It is presently very
> difficult to build a non-human technical devive with anything like that
> capability.
>
> > I tried using RMS normalization with SoundForge, but it provides
> > inconsistent results. Some tracks sound about matched to each others,
> > others will be way too loud.
>
> > How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> They did it by listening, and in the digital age, they do it by
> listening.
>
> So just listen and make decisions.
>
is to look at the meter but instead of looking at the peaks, look at
what you might call the 50% crossing level. That is the level that
the meter goes above for 1/2 the time and below for 1/2 the time. I
find that -9 dBFS is a good set point. I set the levels on final
tracks so that the meter is above -9dBFS for 1/2 the time and below -9
dBFS for 1/2 the time.
For pre-recorded highly compressed material the meter just kinda sits
around -9 most of the time. For more dynamic material it swings
above and below -9. Using this method, I find the "loudness" seems
to match well enough from track to track.
Mark
Mike Rivers
May 15, 2013, 6:00:28 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 4:24 PM, docsavage20 wrote:
> I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
> for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>
> There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
> I want to fix this.
Simple. They listen. If a track sounds too loud, they turn it down. If a
> I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
> for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>
> There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it and
> I want to fix this.
track sounds too quiet, they turn it up. Unless all the songs sound
about the same, it probably makes sense for some of them to be louder
than others, both audibly and measurably.
> Wondering how pros level match tracks. I assume
> there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of the
> pants impressions
whatever magic process you applied actually did what you intended (what
you really intended, not what you could measure).
> I tried using RMS normalization with SoundForge, but it provides
> inconsistent results. Some tracks sound about matched to each others,
> others will be way too loud.
does doesn't make a bit of sense to me, and of course the manual or help
file doesn't give any useful explanation. I've used the peak
normalization on individual songs to get the peak levels up to a
standard value, but then end up turning some of them down to fit the
song. The solo ballad sung with dulcimer accompaniment just shouldn't be
as loud as the bluegrass band in the cut next to it.
--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
Scott Dorsey
May 15, 2013, 6:35:12 PM5/15/13
to
on the louder tracks so they match the softer ones. Just use the knob
and your ears.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Trevor
May 15, 2013, 10:55:31 PM5/15/13
to
"Mike Rivers" <mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kn10aq$bdk$1...@dont-email.me...
> I don't understand that RMS normalizing in Sound Forge at all. What it
> does doesn't make a bit of sense to me, and of course the manual or help
> file doesn't give any useful explanation.
What part of RMS Vs peak electrical measurement of AC signals don't you get?
> does doesn't make a bit of sense to me, and of course the manual or help
> file doesn't give any useful explanation.
Soundforge simply gives you the option since more percusive sounds will have
a higher peak to RMS ratio than will highly compressed music.
>I've used the peak normalization on individual songs to get the peak levels
>up to a standard value, but then end up turning some of them down to fit
>the song. The solo ballad sung with dulcimer accompaniment just shouldn't
>be as loud as the bluegrass band in the cut next to it.
in all cases. Many simply set the peak level at -0.1dBFS these days it
seems, but that's guranteed to sound wrong when you mix different genres and
styles on one CD.
Trevor.
Trevor
May 15, 2013, 10:59:28 PM5/15/13
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kn12j0$t2e$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
>
> The same way we do it today with digital tools. We turn the volume down
> on the louder tracks so they match the softer ones. Just use the knob
> and your ears.
Of course you don't want the louder tracks to match the level of softer ones
>
> The same way we do it today with digital tools. We turn the volume down
> on the louder tracks so they match the softer ones. Just use the knob
> and your ears.
in most cases. Often they are supposed to be louder!
Trevor.
Les Cargill
May 15, 2013, 11:25:51 PM5/15/13
to
CoolEdit96 as a baseline. Usually, that works. But of
something has a lot more space or a very quiet part, it
doesn't get slaughtered as much. We're usually talking about a max -
absolute max - gain reduction of 4dB ( IOW, 4dB hotter
than it would be with no final GR ).
Yes, I have a "squoosher" plugin last thing on the mix buss.
GMax is the one I ended up with. I have absolutely no complaints with
it. It does not make square waves.
Stuff ends up about -12dB ... -10dB RMS in CoolEdit, usually. I worry
less about evenness of the levels of the songs than about compression
artifacts. -10dB is very hot.
Also, CoolEdit 2000 ended up with an option for square wave or sine
wave as reference for the RMS level.
Then I stick a CD in the truck and listen to them out the corner of my
ear for level inadequacies. It's easier to find them if you're not
thinking about it.
--
Les Cargill
PStamler
May 16, 2013, 1:08:47 AM5/16/13
to
I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it. (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
Peace,
Paul
For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it. (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
Peace,
Paul
Paul
May 16, 2013, 1:41:53 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/15/2013 10:08 PM, PStamler wrote:
> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
>
> For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it. (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
>
What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress
> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
>
> For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it. (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
>
the hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
hank alrich
May 16, 2013, 2:16:40 AM5/16/13
to
by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
might well remaster for radio.
Paul
May 16, 2013, 4:13:21 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 10:08 PM, PStamler wrote:
>>> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I
>>> set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
>>>
>>> For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only
>>> play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work
>>> (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one
>>> mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it.
>>> (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
>>>
>>
>> What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress
>> the hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
>
> How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
> by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
> might well remaster for radio.
>
Understood, but most radio stations still squash the
> Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 10:08 PM, PStamler wrote:
>>> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I
>>> set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
>>>
>>> For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only
>>> play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work
>>> (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one
>>> mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it.
>>> (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
>>>
>>
>> What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress
>> the hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
>
> How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
> by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
> might well remaster for radio.
>
daylights out of everything they put on the air with
multi-band compression and limiting, usually with
an Optimod.
The loudness wars are alive and well on radio. It's
probably worse on radio than it is for CDs and albums.
They'll do anything to catch the ear of someone flipping
through the channels...
John Williamson
May 16, 2013, 4:26:40 AM5/16/13
to
Paul wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>> How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
>> by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
>> might well remaster for radio.
>>
<Snip>
> On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>> How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
>> by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
>> might well remaster for radio.
>>
> The loudness wars are alive and well on radio. It's
> probably worse on radio than it is for CDs and albums.
> They'll do anything to catch the ear of someone flipping
> through the channels...
>
The radio station compression helps with clarity of reception at the
> probably worse on radio than it is for CDs and albums.
> They'll do anything to catch the ear of someone flipping
> through the channels...
>
limits of the station's range, so it increases the potential audience.
The fact that it also makes it tiring to listen to for long periods is
just an annoying side effect.
I was hoping that Digital Audio Broadcasting in the UK would stop the
Optimod madness, but no... We also get low bitrate mono streams on DAB,
which is capable of CD quality right out to the edge of the transmission
range, but the accountants decided that 64Kb mono is good enough.
Paul
May 16, 2013, 5:02:24 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 1:26 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>>> How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
>>> by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
>>> might well remaster for radio.
>>>
> <Snip>
>> The loudness wars are alive and well on radio. It's
>> probably worse on radio than it is for CDs and albums.
>> They'll do anything to catch the ear of someone flipping
>> through the channels...
>>
> The radio station compression helps with clarity of reception at the
> limits of the station's range, so it increases the potential audience.
> The fact that it also makes it tiring to listen to for long periods is
> just an annoying side effect.
>
Yes, that's true. The closer you are to 100% FM modulation, the
> Paul wrote:
>> On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
>>> How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
>>> by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
>>> might well remaster for radio.
>>>
> <Snip>
>> The loudness wars are alive and well on radio. It's
>> probably worse on radio than it is for CDs and albums.
>> They'll do anything to catch the ear of someone flipping
>> through the channels...
>>
> The radio station compression helps with clarity of reception at the
> limits of the station's range, so it increases the potential audience.
> The fact that it also makes it tiring to listen to for long periods is
> just an annoying side effect.
>
farther your reception will go, so it pays off to reduce the peak to
average ratio of your audio signal.
So don't worry, the radio stations will do their own "mastering"
anyways!
John Williamson
May 16, 2013, 5:16:02 AM5/16/13
to
foul yours up. It's worth running your final mix through a multi-band
compressor set to max on all bands, an 8kHz lowpass filter and a boombox
as a final check for stuff you expect to get played on the radio. All
available for real time monitoring in your favourite DAW program....
Mike Rivers
May 16, 2013, 6:30:29 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/15/2013 10:55 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Mike Rivers"<mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kn10aq$bdk$1...@dont-email.me...
>> I don't understand that RMS normalizing in Sound Forge at all.
> "Mike Rivers"<mm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kn10aq$bdk$1...@dont-email.me...
>> I don't understand that RMS normalizing in Sound Forge at all.
> What part of RMS Vs peak electrical measurement of AC signals don't you get?
> Soundforge simply gives you the option since more percusive sounds will have
> a higher peak to RMS ratio than will highly compressed music.
I can't figure out how to work it. Unlike most here, I don't get into
> Soundforge simply gives you the option since more percusive sounds will have
> a higher peak to RMS ratio than will highly compressed music.
numbers when it comes to RMS, I just listen. And I can't figure out how
to set anything in Sound Forge's RMS Normalizing that doesn't come out
sounding really bad. Can you give me a starting point for something that
I like but I want to try to make "louder" just for the sake of the poor
people who only listen in their cars.
Mike Rivers
May 16, 2013, 6:32:21 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 1:08 AM, PStamler wrote:
> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
That's pretty much how I've always did it, though I usually set my
> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
digital reference level at -16 dBFS.
Mike Rivers
May 16, 2013, 6:35:58 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 1:41 AM, Paul wrote:
> What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress the
> hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
An Optimod is much more sophisticated than a compressor. According to
> What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress the
> hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
Bob Orban, it works worse on a highly compressed source than it does on
a source with real dynamics.
The reason why people make songs targeted for radio loud by compressing
is to get the attention of the station's program or music director, the
one who decides what gets played. They don't judge sound quality, only
how attention-grabbing a song is. At least that's the way it used to be
and probably still is, except that few stations have music directors any
more, they just get pre-loaded playlists from a service.
Arny Krueger
May 16, 2013, 8:18:49 AM5/16/13
to
"docsavage20" <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2470708-eb41-4f88...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayGain
> How did they do it before there were any digital tools?
Scott Dorsey
May 16, 2013, 8:27:24 AM5/16/13
to
know what they do.
Scott Dorsey
May 16, 2013, 8:37:26 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn2748$7r8$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's true. The closer you are to 100% FM modulation, the
>farther your reception will go, so it pays off to reduce the peak to
>average ratio of your audio signal.
Not really. There is a paper in the JAES from about three years ago to that
>
> Yes, that's true. The closer you are to 100% FM modulation, the
>farther your reception will go, so it pays off to reduce the peak to
>average ratio of your audio signal.
effect.
Basically, it does not affect the range of full FM quieting at all. What
it DOES do is make the signal more listenable in fringe areas where you
have dropped out of full FM quieting. So it increases your listening radius
by a little bit, but not a tremendous amount in most terrains.
What it mostly does is stand out on the dial... people have a tendency to
stop on the loudest station they pass by and when the average listener is
only hanging around for one song or so this is very important.
Let me point out that the Optimod-FM is not an offender; you really cannot
be very abusive with it before it falls apart. Orban innovated a lot of
tools that make for loudness without artifacts, like doing the processing
after the pre-emphasis to prevent filter overshoot, and he included a lot
of other older tools designed for loudness without artifacts like phase
rotation.
Major market stations and stations that want to be abusively loud avoid
the Optimods, and go with far more aggressive processing today. The Optimod
is more likely the tool for stations that are interested in quality audio
at the expense of extreme loudness.
> So don't worry, the radio stations will do their own "mastering"
>anyways!
characteristic sound to all the records and make them all sound more similar.
This got to extremes back in the seventies; I used to work at a top-40 AM
station that used a Fisher Spacexpander spring reverb in the air chain. These
days this isn't quite as important to the typical PD; a lot of larger stations
don't really care about uniformity or having a "sound" so much as sheer
loudness because their only goal is to capture a listener for a few minutes
as they pass by.
Neil Gould
May 16, 2013, 9:55:00 AM5/16/13
to
hank alrich wrote:
> docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
>> for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>>
>> There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it
>> and I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I
>> assume there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of
>> the pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall,
>> drop it by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
>
> That's the best way, and the only one that really works. Many factors
> influence your perception of loudness in music. It is presently very
> difficult to build a non-human technical devive with anything like
> that capability.
>
Although it isn't *practical* for individuals to build a non-human technical
> docsavage20 <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm putting together a compilation of tracks by a particular artist
>> for a friend from various sources, mostly LP, a couple from tape.
>>
>> There's enough variation in the overall volume for me to notice it
>> and I want to fix this. Wondering how pros level match tracks. I
>> assume there's a better way than listening to them and go by seat of
>> the pants impressions - "this seems louder than that one overall,
>> drop it by 1 or 2 db" or whatever.
>
> That's the best way, and the only one that really works. Many factors
> influence your perception of loudness in music. It is presently very
> difficult to build a non-human technical devive with anything like
> that capability.
>
device to do this, such devices have existed for decades. They are used by
radio stations to perform the task, not just for music but for all program
material. My son heads the development team for one such device, the Telos
Omnia, which has received awards from the industry for its innovations and
has been stealing market share from Orban's offerings for the past few
years. It may be possible to find an older, used device from a radio swap
meet, then it's just plug-n-play.
All that said, as a musician, I am not a fan of these devices, so you can
imagine the father-son discussions we've had over the decades. ;-)
--
best regards,
Neil
thekma...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 10:39:50 AM5/16/13
to
Les Cargill:
The advice to the o.p. should be to apply NO dynamics processing.
All the others' advice on here is good: using a combination of ears and metering to match avg levels.
All the compression those LP sources needed was applied to them already, during those mastering sessions.
(Jeez I'd love to compress somebody's FU@#N' HEAD!!!)
The advice to the o.p. should be to apply NO dynamics processing.
All the others' advice on here is good: using a combination of ears and metering to match avg levels.
All the compression those LP sources needed was applied to them already, during those mastering sessions.
(Jeez I'd love to compress somebody's FU@#N' HEAD!!!)
thekma...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 10:47:29 AM5/16/13
to
John Williamson:
No need to master "for radio": http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-means-nothing-on-the-radio/
No need to master "for radio": http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-means-nothing-on-the-radio/
Paul
May 16, 2013, 11:27:20 AM5/16/13
to
since the early 90's.....
Paul
May 16, 2013, 11:30:00 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 5:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <kn2748$7r8$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's true. The closer you are to 100% FM modulation, the
>> farther your reception will go, so it pays off to reduce the peak to
>> average ratio of your audio signal.
>
> Not really. There is a paper in the JAES from about three years ago to that
> effect.
>
It definitely helps.
> In article <kn2748$7r8$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's true. The closer you are to 100% FM modulation, the
>> farther your reception will go, so it pays off to reduce the peak to
>> average ratio of your audio signal.
>
> Not really. There is a paper in the JAES from about three years ago to that
> effect.
>
> Basically, it does not affect the range of full FM quieting at all. What
> it DOES do is make the signal more listenable in fringe areas where you
> have dropped out of full FM quieting. So it increases your listening radius
> by a little bit, but not a tremendous amount in most terrains.
terms of reception at the fringes.
docsavage20
May 16, 2013, 11:33:16 AM5/16/13
to
On May 15, 10:59 pm, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
> Of course you don't want the louder tracks to match the level of softer ones
> in most cases. Often they are supposed to be louder!
>
> Trevor.
The standard that seems reasonable to me is that you should be able to
>
> Of course you don't want the louder tracks to match the level of softer ones
> in most cases. Often they are supposed to be louder!
>
> Trevor.
set the volume for track 1 at a comfortable level and be able to
listen to the entire album without feeling the need to adjust the
level further.
Paul
May 16, 2013, 11:34:43 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 7:47 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> John Williamson:
>
> No need to master "for radio": http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-means-nothing-on-the-radio/
>
Great article. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
> John Williamson:
>
> No need to master "for radio": http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-means-nothing-on-the-radio/
>
If anything, you could give a special uncompressed mix to the
radio stations, at the risk of them not playing your single.
It's just horrible to hear the quiet parts of your favorite
songs, smashed into hyper loudness, so all parts of the song are
equally loud, with tape hiss or other noise amplified as well....
Paul
May 16, 2013, 11:58:11 AM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 5:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
if some people pretend that they do....
Les Cargill
May 16, 2013, 1:24:42 PM5/16/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Les Cargill:
>
> The advice to the o.p. should be to apply NO dynamics processing.
>
Heh. Enjoy the buffet, folks - he'll be here all week.
> Les Cargill:
>
> The advice to the o.p. should be to apply NO dynamics processing.
>
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Ron C
May 16, 2013, 1:35:29 PM5/16/13
to
(mostly) Bluegrass venue. What I'd do is put a bunch of Bluegrass
CDs in my player, set it to random, hit record, and walk away for
an hour or so. Then I'd open that in Sound Forge and make all the
little rectangles, an hour or so of songs one screen wide look
like little rectangles with hair, anyway, I'd make all the rectangles
about the same height. Then I'd listen to a section of each and
tweak as needed. Then I would give the whole thing a mild Wave
Hammer treatment as a final leveling before I cut it up and dumped
it to a house CD. It gave a nice uniform background. Those CDs
also worked well in the car on the way to and from the venue.
That's about as close to automating the process I ever got.
[YMMV]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
hank alrich
May 16, 2013, 3:23:29 PM5/16/13
to
Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> > Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/15/2013 10:08 PM, PStamler wrote:
> >>> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I
> >>> set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
> >>>
> >>> For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only
> >>> play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work
> >>> (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one
> >>> mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it.
> >>> (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress
> >> the hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
> >
> > How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
> > by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
> > might well remaster for radio.
> >
>
> Understood, but most radio stations still squash the
> daylights out of everything they put on the air with
> multi-band compression and limiting, usually with
> an Optimod.
Again, what you send the Optimod makes a large difference in what comes
> On 5/15/2013 11:16 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> > Paul <Quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/15/2013 10:08 PM, PStamler wrote:
> >>> I can do rough matches using a VU meter -- with defined ballistics. I
> >>> set everything to 0vu = -14dBFS.
> >>>
> >>> For casual listening or stuff I'm remastering for radio, where I'll only
> >>> play one track at a time, that's close enough. For critical work
> >>> (mastering an album) I listen. There's no substitute. I pick one
> >>> mid-level track as my reference, then A/B all the other tracks to it.
> >>> (Being able to keep open two instances of Audition helps a lot.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> What's the point of remastering for radio, if all of them compress
> >> the hell out of everything with an Orban Optimod anyways?
> >
> > How the final processing affects the sound quality is in turn affected
> > by the dynamic content of the program material. And that is why one
> > might well remaster for radio.
> >
>
> Understood, but most radio stations still squash the
> daylights out of everything they put on the air with
> multi-band compression and limiting, usually with
> an Optimod.
out of it.
> The loudness wars are alive and well on radio. It's
> probably worse on radio than it is for CDs and albums.
> They'll do anything to catch the ear of someone flipping
> through the channels...
hank alrich
May 16, 2013, 3:23:30 PM5/16/13
to
PStamler
May 16, 2013, 3:46:14 PM5/16/13
to
Just to be clear: When I talk about "remastering for radio", I'm not talking about making a disc that will be sent out to many radio stations -- that would take more attention. Instead, I'm talking about remastering LPs and 78s for broadcast on my radio program (Sundays, 2-4 central time, streamed at www.kdhx.org). Our engineers don't do the loudness-wars thing; our compression is fairly minimal, mostly there to keep us legal by avoiding overmodulation, and the station has a decent over-the-air sound.
So I master everything to 0vu = -14dBFS, for which the proper playback level is -18dB on the CD player's slider on our board. I *never* compress these remastered recordings, although once in a ehile I may manually pull down a stray peak.
And I do it with a meter that has VU ballistics. For an album to be published I'd need to get fancier and adjust all levels by ear.
Peace,
Paul
So I master everything to 0vu = -14dBFS, for which the proper playback level is -18dB on the CD player's slider on our board. I *never* compress these remastered recordings, although once in a ehile I may manually pull down a stray peak.
And I do it with a meter that has VU ballistics. For an album to be published I'd need to get fancier and adjust all levels by ear.
Peace,
Paul
John Williamson
May 16, 2013, 3:50:39 PM5/16/13
to
your mix will survive the multiband compression applied by radio
stations, I have to agree with you.
John Williamson
May 16, 2013, 3:56:04 PM5/16/13
to
thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> John Williamson:
>
> No need to master "for radio": http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-means-nothing-on-the-radio/
The treatment they give your sound is still worth taking into
> John Williamson:
>
> No need to master "for radio": http://productionadvice.co.uk/loudness-means-nothing-on-the-radio/
consideration when finalising the mix, IMO.
There was a case recently here where an artiste had to provide a special
mix for the BBC and other radio stations, as his mix totally fouled up
the whole BBC signal chain....
Too much dynamic range in the bass, IIRC. But I could be wrong about
that, I wasn't paying much attention to the story.
Scott Dorsey
May 16, 2013, 5:27:03 PM5/16/13
to
Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>Although it isn't *practical* for individuals to build a non-human technical
>device to do this, such devices have existed for decades. They are used by
>radio stations to perform the task, not just for music but for all program
>material. My son heads the development team for one such device, the Telos
>Omnia, which has received awards from the industry for its innovations and
>has been stealing market share from Orban's offerings for the past few
>years. It may be possible to find an older, used device from a radio swap
>meet, then it's just plug-n-play.
This is called an AVC device, or automatic volume control. The first stage
>Although it isn't *practical* for individuals to build a non-human technical
>device to do this, such devices have existed for decades. They are used by
>radio stations to perform the task, not just for music but for all program
>material. My son heads the development team for one such device, the Telos
>Omnia, which has received awards from the industry for its innovations and
>has been stealing market share from Orban's offerings for the past few
>years. It may be possible to find an older, used device from a radio swap
>meet, then it's just plug-n-play.
of the many stages of most airchain processing is an AVC system to prevent
the DJ from having to ride gain properly.
The Aphex 108 "Easyrider" is typical of such devices. An old classic with
some intelligent control to prevent pumping is the CBS Audimax.
It really wouldn't be hard to build something like this at home, it's really
just a very very slow-acting compressor with some control features added.
But why bother when people are practically throwing Audimaxes out?
Scott Dorsey
May 16, 2013, 5:27:54 PM5/16/13
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The advice to the o.p. should be to apply NO dynamics processing.
>
>All the others' advice on here is good: using a combination of ears and metering to match avg levels.
But that IS dynamics processing!
>
>The advice to the o.p. should be to apply NO dynamics processing.
>
>All the others' advice on here is good: using a combination of ears and metering to match avg levels.
thekma...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 7:42:56 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:27:54 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
>
> >All the others' advice on here is good: using a combination of ears and metering to match avg levels.
>
>
>
> But that IS dynamics processing!
>
> --scott
>
Since when is making sure that tracks compiled from a variety of LPs and other sources don't vary too much in volume from track-to-track(so the listener doesn't have to adjust their playback vol) "dynamics processing"??
> >
>
> >All the others' advice on here is good: using a combination of ears and metering to match avg levels.
>
>
>
> But that IS dynamics processing!
>
> --scott
>
I'd LOVE to hear the logic behind this...
S. King
May 16, 2013, 8:06:23 PM5/16/13
to
Steve King
Trevor
May 16, 2013, 11:32:05 PM5/16/13
to
news:kn2c8s$1js$1...@dont-email.me...
The best option is to do both a peak and RMS scan on the music before
changing levels, then using that information of peak to RMS ratio you can
determine if you want to simly increase volume level or perhaps compress a
little more.
Frankly I never use the automatic normalisation, but if you do, a setting of
around -16dB RMS will give better results than normalising for peaks. If the
music clips at that level you need to decide if you want to use a lower RMS
setting for all tracks, or compress the tracks that clip a little more.
Most commercial CD's are more like -10dB RMS these days or greater, but that
needs a lot more compression and many simply use hard clipping. Apparently
most buyers don't care :-(
Trevor.
changing levels, then using that information of peak to RMS ratio you can
determine if you want to simly increase volume level or perhaps compress a
little more.
Frankly I never use the automatic normalisation, but if you do, a setting of
around -16dB RMS will give better results than normalising for peaks. If the
music clips at that level you need to decide if you want to use a lower RMS
setting for all tracks, or compress the tracks that clip a little more.
Most commercial CD's are more like -10dB RMS these days or greater, but that
needs a lot more compression and many simply use hard clipping. Apparently
most buyers don't care :-(
Trevor.
Trevor
May 16, 2013, 11:41:12 PM5/16/13
to
news:4484a96d-1901-4745...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
ballads should sound as loud as hard rock numbers, or purposely be set
lower. Most people think the latter, but not everyone does of course.
Trevor.
On May 15, 10:59 pm, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>> Of course you don't want the louder tracks to match the level of softer
>> ones
>> in most cases. Often they are supposed to be louder!
>
>> Of course you don't want the louder tracks to match the level of softer
>> ones
>> in most cases. Often they are supposed to be louder!
>
>The standard that seems reasonable to me is that you should be able to
>set the volume for track 1 at a comfortable level and be able to
>listen to the entire album without feeling the need to adjust the
>level further.
I think that's everyones aim, the debate is how you go about it, and whether
>set the volume for track 1 at a comfortable level and be able to
>listen to the entire album without feeling the need to adjust the
>level further.
ballads should sound as loud as hard rock numbers, or purposely be set
lower. Most people think the latter, but not everyone does of course.
Trevor.
Neil Gould
May 17, 2013, 9:05:32 AM5/17/13
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> Although it isn't *practical* for individuals to build a non-human
>> technical device to do this, such devices have existed for decades.
>> They are used by radio stations to perform the task, not just for
>> music but for all program material. My son heads the development
>> team for one such device, the Telos Omnia, which has received awards
>> from the industry for its innovations and has been stealing market
>> share from Orban's offerings for the past few years. It may be
>> possible to find an older, used device from a radio swap meet, then
>> it's just plug-n-play.
>
[...]
> Neil Gould <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> Although it isn't *practical* for individuals to build a non-human
>> technical device to do this, such devices have existed for decades.
>> They are used by radio stations to perform the task, not just for
>> music but for all program material. My son heads the development
>> team for one such device, the Telos Omnia, which has received awards
>> from the industry for its innovations and has been stealing market
>> share from Orban's offerings for the past few years. It may be
>> possible to find an older, used device from a radio swap meet, then
>> it's just plug-n-play.
>
>
> It really wouldn't be hard to build something like this at home, it's
> really just a very very slow-acting compressor with some control
> features added. But why bother when people are practically throwing
> Audimaxes out? --scott
>
Well, good AVCs are quite a bit more sophisticated than you're describing
> It really wouldn't be hard to build something like this at home, it's
> really just a very very slow-acting compressor with some control
> features added. But why bother when people are practically throwing
> Audimaxes out? --scott
>
here, Scott. But, I agree that there is a "flavor of the day" quality about
them that might make them cheap to buy used. More to the point, this kind of
unit directly addresses the OP's request.
--
best regards,
Neil
Trevor
May 18, 2013, 12:35:32 AM5/18/13
to
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:kn56hi$ov4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
measured before processing, it is far easier and better to do it all in the
digital domain than use any real time analog unit that is always playing
catch up with the signal, and relies on time constants that are always a
compromise.
Trevor.
Neil Gould
May 18, 2013, 7:27:46 AM5/18/13
to
There's also a lot more going on in the adaptive processing stages than one
could reasonably do using a DAW. If you think about it, a very large part of
a radio station's audio characteristics are being set by these devices.
--
best regards,
Neil
Trevor
May 19, 2013, 3:54:49 AM5/19/13
to
news:kn7l6a$qjt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Irrelevant to what I said. Any real time processing unit like the Audimax,
whether analog or digital, is a serious compromise of time constants.
> There's also a lot more going on in the adaptive processing stages than
> one
> could reasonably do using a DAW. If you think about it, a very large part
> of
> a radio station's audio characteristics are being set by these devices.
And you want that on your CD's why exactly? I'd rather leave those devices
for the purpose they were intended.
Trevor.
whether analog or digital, is a serious compromise of time constants.
> There's also a lot more going on in the adaptive processing stages than
> one
> could reasonably do using a DAW. If you think about it, a very large part
> of
> a radio station's audio characteristics are being set by these devices.
for the purpose they were intended.
Trevor.
Neil Gould
May 20, 2013, 10:02:25 AM5/20/13
to
>> There's also a lot more going on in the adaptive processing stages
>> than one
>> could reasonably do using a DAW. If you think about it, a very large
>> part of
>> a radio station's audio characteristics are being set by these
>> devices.
>
> And you want that on your CD's why exactly? I'd rather leave those
> devices for the purpose they were intended.
>
Well, not only would I not want that processing on my CDs (see my original
>> than one
>> could reasonably do using a DAW. If you think about it, a very large
>> part of
>> a radio station's audio characteristics are being set by these
>> devices.
>
> And you want that on your CD's why exactly? I'd rather leave those
> devices for the purpose they were intended.
>
reply), I wouldn't want my collection of CDs to be "normalized" in the
manner that the OP asked. This isn't about me.
--
best regards,
Neil
Trevor
May 21, 2013, 1:59:26 AM5/21/13
to
news:knd70e$bsh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Glad you also disagree with the part you snipped (to which my reply was
directed) then.
Trevor.
directed) then.
Trevor.
0 new messages