Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CD Rip Clipping
357 views
Skip to first unread message
mcp6453
Dec 1, 2012, 11:40:16 PM12/1/12
to
I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using foobar2000. Then
I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case, the
audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something wrong?
It is amazing to believe that a CD could be released nationally with this much
clipping.
I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case, the
audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something wrong?
It is amazing to believe that a CD could be released nationally with this much
clipping.
PStamler
Dec 2, 2012, 1:17:54 AM12/2/12
to
On the other hand if by "clipping" you mean that about 0.3 sec. were missing from the head of each track, get yourself a copy of Audiograbber and try again. There are some CDs where the track markers are messed up; EAC clips the lead audio off, Audiograbber gets it cleanly.
Peace,
Paul
Mike Rivers
Dec 2, 2012, 10:55:53 AM12/2/12
to
On 12/1/2012 11:40 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
> I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using foobar2000. Then
> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case, the
> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something wrong?
Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some
> I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using foobar2000. Then
> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case, the
> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something wrong?
describe this as looking like toothpaste coming out of a
tube) in either the recording or mastering process, in the
interest of making the disk sound loud when it's played.
That's how commercial releases of pop music (and even some
less-than-pop) are made these days
Don't worry about how it looks. Does the extracted audio
file sound about the same as the CD? The best test of this
is to play both through the same D/A converter if you really
want to dig into it.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
mcp6453
Dec 2, 2012, 11:36:35 AM12/2/12
to
On 12/2/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/1/2012 11:40 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>> I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using foobar2000. Then
>> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case, the
>> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something wrong?
>
> Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some describe this as looking
> like toothpaste coming out of a tube) in either the recording or mastering
> process, in the interest of making the disk sound loud when it's played. That's
> how commercial releases of pop music (and even some less-than-pop) are made
> these days
>
> Don't worry about how it looks. Does the extracted audio file sound about the
> same as the CD? The best test of this is to play both through the same D/A
> converter if you really want to dig into it.
For Paul, yes, I'm talking flat topping/audio clipping.
> On 12/1/2012 11:40 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>> I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using foobar2000. Then
>> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case, the
>> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something wrong?
>
> Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some describe this as looking
> like toothpaste coming out of a tube) in either the recording or mastering
> process, in the interest of making the disk sound loud when it's played. That's
> how commercial releases of pop music (and even some less-than-pop) are made
> these days
>
> Don't worry about how it looks. Does the extracted audio file sound about the
> same as the CD? The best test of this is to play both through the same D/A
> converter if you really want to dig into it.
The extracted file sounds the same as the CD. It is very, very low. What I'm
puzzled about is the overs. There are quite a few throughout. They must be very
short duration as I cannot hear them well. The whole track is so loud that it's
hardly listenable.
My first exposure to this nonsense was Janet Jackson's "Rhythm Nation." I'm
still shocked that pros let this stuff out.
mcp6453
Dec 2, 2012, 11:37:41 AM12/2/12
to
very, very *loud*
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 2, 2012, 1:17:29 PM12/2/12
to
As one mastering engineer on a forum put it to me, they are asked to do things now that would have gotten them fired 20-30 years ago.
That includes brickwalling albums such as Metallica's Death Magnetic.
Loudness - and nothing else - is the commodity of today's recorded music business. Don't worry, there is nothing wrong with your listening chain! :) Just don't buy the crap! lol
That includes brickwalling albums such as Metallica's Death Magnetic.
Loudness - and nothing else - is the commodity of today's recorded music business. Don't worry, there is nothing wrong with your listening chain! :) Just don't buy the crap! lol
Mike Rivers
Dec 2, 2012, 2:38:51 PM12/2/12
to
On 12/2/2012 11:36 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
> The extracted file sounds the same as the CD. It is very, very low. What I'm
> puzzled about is the overs. There are quite a few throughout. They must be very
> short duration as I cannot hear them well.
That's exactly how (and why) it works.
> The extracted file sounds the same as the CD. It is very, very low. What I'm
> puzzled about is the overs. There are quite a few throughout. They must be very
> short duration as I cannot hear them well.
> The whole track is so loud that it's hardly listenable.
Luxey
Dec 2, 2012, 5:31:29 PM12/2/12
to
Arn't those just some clicks due CD player/ bus it uses, bad memory chips, whatever?
Scott Dorsey
Dec 2, 2012, 6:24:54 PM12/2/12
to
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
geoff
Dec 2, 2012, 6:48:03 PM12/2/12
to
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:k9ftmg$tvn$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 12/1/2012 11:40 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>> I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using
>> foobar2000. Then
>> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case,
>> the
>> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something
>> wrong?
>
> Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some describe this as
> looking like toothpaste coming out of a tube) in either the recording or
> mastering process, in the interest of making the disk sound loud when it's
> played. That's how commercial releases of pop music (and even some
> less-than-pop) are made these days
Pretty silly really, considering you can make it just as loud *without*
>> I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using
>> foobar2000. Then
>> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case,
>> the
>> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something
>> wrong?
>
> Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some describe this as
> looking like toothpaste coming out of a tube) in either the recording or
> mastering process, in the interest of making the disk sound loud when it's
> played. That's how commercial releases of pop music (and even some
> less-than-pop) are made these days
cliiping anything, if you want to.
Or he could be referring to the overall envelope rather than actual waveform
clipping.
geoff
Doug McDonald
Dec 2, 2012, 7:43:05 PM12/2/12
to
On 12/2/2012 5:48 PM, geoff wrote:
>
> Pretty silly really, considering you can make it just as loud *without*
> cliiping anything, if you want to.
How?
>
> Pretty silly really, considering you can make it just as loud *without*
> cliiping anything, if you want to.
Doug McDonald
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 2, 2012, 8:26:22 PM12/2/12
to
Doug: "How"
Layered compressors and peak normalize @-2dBfs.
Layered compressors and peak normalize @-2dBfs.
Mike Rivers
Dec 2, 2012, 9:31:15 PM12/2/12
to
On 12/2/2012 6:48 PM, geoff wrote:
> Pretty silly really, considering you can make it just as loud *without*
> cliiping anything, if you want to.
But to do that, you have to get out of your chair or find
> Pretty silly really, considering you can make it just as loud *without*
> cliiping anything, if you want to.
the remote controller and turn up the volume. That seems to
be something that "people" don't want to bother doing.
Don Pearce
Dec 3, 2012, 1:12:49 AM12/3/12
to
d
geoff
Dec 3, 2012, 3:08:43 AM12/3/12
to
"Doug McDonald" <jdmc...@illinois.edu> wrote in message
news:k9gsil$rn0$1...@dont-email.me...
geoff
Luxey
Dec 3, 2012, 4:34:28 AM12/3/12
to
I've missed this. It's not low, but loud. So, it's about loudness wars, again.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 3, 2012, 11:30:15 AM12/3/12
to
--scott
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 3, 2012, 4:07:14 PM12/3/12
to
On Monday, December 3, 2012 11:30:15 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
________________
+1! ^
Too bad some people think something is "wrong" when the volume knob(if a knob is used) must approach the 12:00 position to render a reasonably loud presentation.
I think something is wrong when I put on a CD and have to keep the volume setting so low just to avoid fatiguing my ears or those of others.
Scott I have to ask this, I honestly don't know: Do all volume controls, on the fronts of home stereo receivers or the attenuator knobs on the rack of Crowns or QSCs at an outdoor concert operate on the same principle - as resistors?
Or do certain volume knobs actually increase the power output of the device they are attached to, as they are turned clockwise?
+1! ^
Too bad some people think something is "wrong" when the volume knob(if a knob is used) must approach the 12:00 position to render a reasonably loud presentation.
I think something is wrong when I put on a CD and have to keep the volume setting so low just to avoid fatiguing my ears or those of others.
Scott I have to ask this, I honestly don't know: Do all volume controls, on the fronts of home stereo receivers or the attenuator knobs on the rack of Crowns or QSCs at an outdoor concert operate on the same principle - as resistors?
Or do certain volume knobs actually increase the power output of the device they are attached to, as they are turned clockwise?
William Sommerwerck
Dec 3, 2012, 4:31:03 PM12/3/12
to
> Do all volume controls, on the fronts of home stereo receivers
> or the attenuator knobs on the rack of Crowns or QSCs at an
> outdoor concert operate on the same principle - as resistors?
Yes, basically. Most volume controls sit toward the "front" of the amplifier
> or the attenuator knobs on the rack of Crowns or QSCs at an
> outdoor concert operate on the same principle - as resistors?
and vary the input signal level. Considered "locally", they change the input
level. Considered "globally", they change the amplifier gain.
> Or do certain volume knobs actually increase the power output
> of the device they are attached to, as they are turned clockwise?
I believe some early radios had gain controls that worked by changing the
filament voltage of the output tubes.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 3, 2012, 4:49:18 PM12/3/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Do all volume controls, on the fronts of home stereo receivers
>> or the attenuator knobs on the rack of Crowns or QSCs at an
>> outdoor concert operate on the same principle - as resistors?
>
>Yes, basically. Most volume controls sit toward the "front" of the amplifier
>and vary the input signal level. Considered "locally", they change the input
>level. Considered "globally", they change the amplifier gain.
Occasionally these days you will find digital attenuators on some consumer
>> Do all volume controls, on the fronts of home stereo receivers
>> or the attenuator knobs on the rack of Crowns or QSCs at an
>> outdoor concert operate on the same principle - as resistors?
>
>Yes, basically. Most volume controls sit toward the "front" of the amplifier
>and vary the input signal level. Considered "locally", they change the input
>level. Considered "globally", they change the amplifier gain.
gear. They run the converter with full gain, then they attenuate in software.
Which is fine, since the end result is the same, and these days modern
converters have S/N to spare.
>> Or do certain volume knobs actually increase the power output
>> of the device they are attached to, as they are turned clockwise?
>
>Taking your question /literally/... Of course they do.
and the power will stay at zero. Gain is a multiplication factor after all.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 3, 2012, 5:43:05 PM12/3/12
to
On Monday, December 3, 2012 4:49:18 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
____________
Scott I hope you understand the difference between "simple-minded" and "dumb". I am far more the former than the latter, just to be clear.
With that said, I "simple-mindedly" assumed volume knobs(the mechanical ones anyway) to be like faucets. Fully counter clockwise they let no current reach the speakers. Fully clockwise they let'em have it.
Secondly, is it better, in the case of a recording being played over a stereo system, to feed that receiver a low avg volume recording and have to turn the volume more clockwise or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume) recording requiring very little clockwise rotation? I've heard talk that it's better to have less volume control "in the way" by having to turn it up(more clockwise).
Scott I hope you understand the difference between "simple-minded" and "dumb". I am far more the former than the latter, just to be clear.
With that said, I "simple-mindedly" assumed volume knobs(the mechanical ones anyway) to be like faucets. Fully counter clockwise they let no current reach the speakers. Fully clockwise they let'em have it.
Secondly, is it better, in the case of a recording being played over a stereo system, to feed that receiver a low avg volume recording and have to turn the volume more clockwise or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume) recording requiring very little clockwise rotation? I've heard talk that it's better to have less volume control "in the way" by having to turn it up(more clockwise).
Arny Krueger
Dec 3, 2012, 9:47:11 PM12/3/12
to
"mcp6453" <mcp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q4Gdnee5EL4lRifN...@giganews.com...
>I ripped a commercial CD using Exact Audio Copy and again using foobar2000.
>Then
> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case,
> the
> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something
> wrong?
Probably not.
>Then
> I opened the CDA file directly using Adobe Audition 1.5. In every case,
> the
> audio is clipped. It was a national release. Could I be doing something
> wrong?
> It is amazing to believe that a CD could be released nationally with this
> much
> clipping.
angst over exactly this issue.
If you have any questions about the reliability and accuracy of your ripping
software do the following:
Burn a CD from a .wav file
Rip the CD
Compare the ripped .wav file to the original
In Audition you can do the comparison via a mix paste with one file
inverted. Note: you must first align the files sample-perfect.
Les Cargill
Dec 3, 2012, 9:53:29 PM12/3/12
to
much easier.
--
les cargill
geoff
Dec 4, 2012, 1:06:55 AM12/4/12
to
Scott I hope you understand the difference between "simple-minded" and
"dumb". I am far more the former than the latter, just to be clear.
With that said, I "simple-mindedly" assumed volume knobs(the mechanical ones
anyway) to be like faucets. Fully counter clockwise they let no current
reach the speakers. Fully clockwise they let'em have it.
Secondly, is it better, in the case of a recording being played over a
stereo system, to feed that receiver a low avg volume recording and have to
turn the volume more clockwise or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume)
recording requiring very little clockwise rotation? I've heard talk that
it's better to have less volume control "in the way" by having to turn it
up(more clockwise).
All you need to know is that if you turn it clockwise, it gets louder. And
vice-versa
Some are variable resistors (potentiaometers) - histoically all all were.
But increasingly now they are digital encoders, and they do all sorts of
'clever' things with the rate of turn. And level is not dependant on actual
physical position of the knob. Ghastly things. They never get scratchy but
they do crap out relatively easily.
geoff
PStamler
Dec 4, 2012, 2:08:06 AM12/4/12
to
On Monday, December 3, 2012 4:43:05 PM UTC-6, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Secondly, is it better, in the case of a recording being played over a stereo system, to feed that receiver a low avg volume recording and have to turn the volume more clockwise or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume) recording requiring very little clockwise rotation? I've heard talk that it's better to have less volume control "in the
way" by having to turn it up(more clockwise).
As usual, It All Depends.
> Secondly, is it better, in the case of a recording being played over a stereo system, to feed that receiver a low avg volume recording and have to turn the volume more clockwise or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume) recording requiring very little clockwise rotation? I've heard talk that it's better to have less volume control "in the
way" by having to turn it up(more clockwise).
Assuming the signal source is happy putting out a high level signal, you're fine in terms of quality with either a hot signal turned down with the level control or a lower signal and the level control set higher.
Remember that traditional volume controls are simply attenuators, often connected directly to the input selector switch.
The one disadvantage of hot-signal-low-control-setting is that potentiometers tend to be a little tricky at high-attenuation (lower-volume) settings. Sometimes the taper gets inexact, and a tiny change in knob position makes a big change in volume. This gets annoying. Also, at these settings, sometimes the two channels don't track each other's settings as well as you'd like.
If the receiver in question is equipped with a digital attenuator, of course, none of the above applies.
Peace,
Paul
William Sommerwerck
Dec 4, 2012, 8:12:08 AM12/4/12
to
> Is it better, in the case of a recording being played over a stereo
> system,
As opposed to playing it over...?
> to feed that receiver a low average volume recording and have to turn
> the volume higher, or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume) recording
one gain stage ahead of the pot. With a very hot signal, there's a slight
chance of the input stage clipping. This is unlikely, though.
A hot signal does have one strange psychological advantage. The amplifier's
output increases so rapidly as you turn the volume knob that the amplifier
sounds "loud" and "powerful".
> I've heard talk that it's better to have less volume control "in the way"
> by having to turn it up.
Any distortion introduced by a volume control enters where the slider
contacts the track. People who've measured this distortion say it's
ridiculously low, almost impossible to measure even with the best equipment.
> system,
As opposed to playing it over...?
> to feed that receiver a low average volume recording and have to turn
> the volume higher, or to feed the receiver a "hot"(high volume) recording
> requiring very little clockwise rotation?
Volume controls are rarely right at the amplifier's input. There's usually
one gain stage ahead of the pot. With a very hot signal, there's a slight
chance of the input stage clipping. This is unlikely, though.
A hot signal does have one strange psychological advantage. The amplifier's
output increases so rapidly as you turn the volume knob that the amplifier
sounds "loud" and "powerful".
> I've heard talk that it's better to have less volume control "in the way"
Any distortion introduced by a volume control enters where the slider
contacts the track. People who've measured this distortion say it's
ridiculously low, almost impossible to measure even with the best equipment.
vdubreeze
Dec 7, 2012, 11:22:48 AM12/7/12
to
On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
> Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some
>
> describe this as looking like toothpaste coming out of a
>
> tube) in either the recording or mastering process, in the
>
> interest of making the disk sound loud when it's played.
>
> That's how commercial releases of pop music (and even some
>
> less-than-pop) are made these days
>
>
>
> Don't worry about how it looks. Does the extracted audio
>
> file sound about the same as the CD? The best test of this
>
> is to play both through the same D/A converter if you really
>
> want to dig into it.
Forgive me if this was covered elsewhere (stupid Google reader). Even if it clips in the meter without sounding horrible, legit digital overs, it was probably, to the masterer an acceptable sounding clip given the context of the music. Wouldn't surprise me if it did and someone thought whatever transients the tracks till had at this point didn't suffer by being overed. Maybe someone even liked it more with it and told the person they were paying to master it to keep it that way. If a backbeat was the loudest peaking thing on a recording and they mastered it so the already wacky sounding backbeat sounded edgier...
> Not likely. The audio was most likely flat-topped (some
>
> describe this as looking like toothpaste coming out of a
>
> tube) in either the recording or mastering process, in the
>
> interest of making the disk sound loud when it's played.
>
> That's how commercial releases of pop music (and even some
>
> less-than-pop) are made these days
>
>
>
> Don't worry about how it looks. Does the extracted audio
>
> file sound about the same as the CD? The best test of this
>
> is to play both through the same D/A converter if you really
>
> want to dig into it.
Loudness wars aside so much music these days *sounds* like it's been flatlined via plugins because it became a sound that kids identified with and so when they recorded their own tracks they felt it wasn't sounding right until the put a super fast brickwall limiter on the all the tracks and also the master and pulled the threshold down until they heard it working. "Where's that edginess? There! That's the sound! " : )
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 7, 2012, 5:28:41 PM12/7/12
to
From the man himself, Mr. Barry Diament: (*** = important part!)
" From a sonic standpoint, we can start with the volume control and its effect on how a playback system sounds. Electronically, a volume control is a type of resistor, placed in the signal path to allow us to (you guessed it) control the playback volume. If we were to bypass the volume control, would the sound disappear? Think of a water pipe that ends in a faucet you can use to control the amount or volume of water the pipe delivers to your kitchen sink. If you were to remove the faucet, the flow of water, far from stopping, would come out of the pipe at full force. Similarly, without a volume control, the playback level of your system would be full up and endanger your hearing as well as your loudspeakers. Volume controls, like water faucets are used to turn things down, not up. This means in effect that there is more of the volume control in the circuit when the volume is turned down than there is when it is turned up. Louder records make you adjust your volume to a lower setting than not so loud records to achieve the same in room loudness. Said another way, when the recorded level is not pushed, you turn up your volume control a bit more than you would for a typical compressed recording.
Anyone that has auditioned different volume controls will know these are devices that can have profound effects on the sound quality a system can deliver. This means if we make two identical recordings that differ only in level, the lower one will result in better playback quality because by turning up the playback volume there will be less of the volume control in the circuit. To play the louder recording at the same apparent level, we'd have to turn the volume control down, putting more of it in the signal path. While this might be insignificant at differences of just a few decibels, when the differences approach 10dB or more, there are audible consequences.
There are other sonic reasons to not push recorded levels, chief among these is ***the fact than most circuits both analog and digital (the latter, contrary to popular wisdom) provide audibly better performance when the levels are not pushed to the top.***
"
Link to source: http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/loudness.htm
I got threads removed from a professional audio(non-usenet) board because I posted this there! > smdh <
None
Dec 7, 2012, 8:49:07 PM12/7/12
to
<kmansucks @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0ea8f5f-fd9f-4637...@googlegroups.com...
> <snip>>
and either you're lying about it, or you're just too stupid to
understand;
even if the reason was laid out in terms simple enough for a child to
understand.
news:e0ea8f5f-fd9f-4637...@googlegroups.com...
> <snip>>
>
> I got threads removed from a professional audio(non-usenet) board
> because I posted this there! > smdh <
You probably got deleted because your were being a trolling asshole,
> I got threads removed from a professional audio(non-usenet) board
> because I posted this there! > smdh <
and either you're lying about it, or you're just too stupid to
understand;
even if the reason was laid out in terms simple enough for a child to
understand.
None
Dec 7, 2012, 9:52:57 PM12/7/12
to
<fuuckingmoron @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0ea8f5f-fd9f-4637...@googlegroups.com...
Volume controls have a wide variety of implementations, and many
of them have nothing to do with what you posted. A potentiometer
can be part of an active circuit which includes gain. A volume knob
can simply deliver a number to a DSP program that does whatever
the the fuck the designer decided to do with the number.
Whoever the fuck Diament is, if your quotation is valid, he appears
to be ignorant on many facets of volume controls. Of course, maybe
you're not quoting him accurately, because you're a troll and a
moron, so that possibility has to be considers.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You would
do well to seek out some elementary education about audio.
You seem intent on proving that you have no such thing.
news:e0ea8f5f-fd9f-4637...@googlegroups.com...
> ________________________
> From the man himself, Mr. Barry Diament: (*** = important part!)
"the man himself"??? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
> From the man himself, Mr. Barry Diament: (*** = important part!)
Volume controls have a wide variety of implementations, and many
of them have nothing to do with what you posted. A potentiometer
can be part of an active circuit which includes gain. A volume knob
can simply deliver a number to a DSP program that does whatever
the the fuck the designer decided to do with the number.
Whoever the fuck Diament is, if your quotation is valid, he appears
to be ignorant on many facets of volume controls. Of course, maybe
you're not quoting him accurately, because you're a troll and a
moron, so that possibility has to be considers.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You would
do well to seek out some elementary education about audio.
You seem intent on proving that you have no such thing.
hank alrich
Dec 8, 2012, 1:27:20 PM12/8/12
to
None <no...@nospam.org> wrote:
> <fuuckingmoron @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e0ea8f5f-fd9f-4637...@googlegroups.com...
> > ________________________
> > From the man himself, Mr. Barry Diament: (*** = important part!)
>
> "the man himself"??? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
>
> Volume controls have a wide variety of implementations, and many
> of them have nothing to do with what you posted. A potentiometer
> can be part of an active circuit which includes gain. A volume knob
> can simply deliver a number to a DSP program that does whatever
> the the fuck the designer decided to do with the number.
>
> Whoever the fuck Diament is, if your quotation is valid, he appears
> to be ignorant on many facets of volume controls. Of course, maybe
> you're not quoting him accurately, because you're a troll and a
> moron, so that possibility has to be considers.
There are things Barry's into that I'm not, having to do with expensive
> <fuuckingmoron @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e0ea8f5f-fd9f-4637...@googlegroups.com...
> > ________________________
> > From the man himself, Mr. Barry Diament: (*** = important part!)
>
> "the man himself"??? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
>
> Volume controls have a wide variety of implementations, and many
> of them have nothing to do with what you posted. A potentiometer
> can be part of an active circuit which includes gain. A volume knob
> can simply deliver a number to a DSP program that does whatever
> the the fuck the designer decided to do with the number.
>
> Whoever the fuck Diament is, if your quotation is valid, he appears
> to be ignorant on many facets of volume controls. Of course, maybe
> you're not quoting him accurately, because you're a troll and a
> moron, so that possibility has to be considers.
speaker cables, for instance, though I'll say up front I haven't tried
what he's using. That said, he's a legit audio professional who turns
out work that many think sounds very good.
http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/
> Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You would
> do well to seek out some elementary education about audio.
> You seem intent on proving that you have no such thing.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
PStamler
Dec 8, 2012, 3:48:05 PM12/8/12
to
Barry Diament is dead wrong. All of a volume control is "in the audio circuit" regardless of where it is set. Part of the control is in series with the signal, part of it is shunting the signal, but *all* of it is in the circuit. Period.
Peace,
Paul
Peace,
Paul
hank alrich
Dec 8, 2012, 4:14:00 PM12/8/12
to
I agree. People can be completely wrong about something directly
pertinent to their work, and still deliver good work. The world is weird
that way. <g>
Barry's a user of MHL kit, and I've met his ideas via the email list.
Like I said, I'm not going along with his statements about many things
audio.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 8, 2012, 6:40:58 PM12/8/12
to
Hank A:
Yeah! Barry's a real kook. Just look at his credits: http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/credits.htm
Go crawl back under that rock in Texastan you crawled out from, JERK.
Yeah! Barry's a real kook. Just look at his credits: http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/credits.htm
Go crawl back under that rock in Texastan you crawled out from, JERK.
None
Dec 8, 2012, 7:39:13 PM12/8/12
to
<littelKboy sucks @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0f5b80f-de9c-479b...@googlegroups.com...
I don't see any indication in those credits that he knows
how volume control circuits work. Its entirely possible to
come up with excellent mastering results despite being
a complete audiophool moron with regards to how audio
circuits actually work. Hank seems to understand how
volume controls work. Barry is living in a fantasy land,
while you have your head up your ass.
You can guarantee that if you keep posting horse shit
here, the horse shit will be identified as such, regardless
of your fondness for licking it off your shoes.
So now you can go crawl back up your own fetid asshole
where you belong. If you want any respect here, you'll
have to actually educate yourself, not just post quotes
from people who you consider "the man himself" with
no understanding of the issue.
In other words, fuck off little Crissie Trollercoaster. Put
on your jammies and go back to your room and stop
bothering the grownups.
news:b0f5b80f-de9c-479b...@googlegroups.com...
how volume control circuits work. Its entirely possible to
come up with excellent mastering results despite being
a complete audiophool moron with regards to how audio
circuits actually work. Hank seems to understand how
volume controls work. Barry is living in a fantasy land,
while you have your head up your ass.
You can guarantee that if you keep posting horse shit
here, the horse shit will be identified as such, regardless
of your fondness for licking it off your shoes.
So now you can go crawl back up your own fetid asshole
where you belong. If you want any respect here, you'll
have to actually educate yourself, not just post quotes
from people who you consider "the man himself" with
no understanding of the issue.
In other words, fuck off little Crissie Trollercoaster. Put
on your jammies and go back to your room and stop
bothering the grownups.
hank alrich
Dec 9, 2012, 2:20:18 AM12/9/12
to
Who said that? Except you.
You can't read.
I am aware of Barry's credits. I stated clearly that I think Barry does
_excellent sounding_ audio work.
That does not mean I need to agree with his statements about audio
technology, nor does it mean that you know what the hell he's talking
about, let alone what you're attempting to talk about.
When Paul Stamler talks about circuitry he knows what he's talking
about. You don't know enough even to know _that_.
I'd also wager that as an early adopter of MHL kit I became aware of
Barry's work well before you found him.
> Go crawl back under that rock in Texastan you crawled out from, JERK.
Get a life, use it to get a clue, and then feel free to GTF out of here.
You aren't here to learn, you don't know shit about audio or music, and
you're wasting oxygen in this newsgroup.
You can't read.
I am aware of Barry's credits. I stated clearly that I think Barry does
_excellent sounding_ audio work.
That does not mean I need to agree with his statements about audio
technology, nor does it mean that you know what the hell he's talking
about, let alone what you're attempting to talk about.
When Paul Stamler talks about circuitry he knows what he's talking
about. You don't know enough even to know _that_.
I'd also wager that as an early adopter of MHL kit I became aware of
Barry's work well before you found him.
> Go crawl back under that rock in Texastan you crawled out from, JERK.
You aren't here to learn, you don't know shit about audio or music, and
you're wasting oxygen in this newsgroup.
Luxey
Dec 9, 2012, 5:48:10 AM12/9/12
to
1st quoted paragraph is ok.
2nd quoted paragraph is plain wrong. It does not show ignorance, but either low IQ of one who wrte it, or hi EQ if it's part of a greater scheme, to fool someone for whatever reason. Again, as far as it goes topicwise, it's plain wrong.
3rd quoted paragraph is vague, pure troll inductor.
Thekma, get a life and go away. what you preach is maybe good enough for listener's forum, in production forum you'll get nothing but what you're already geting.
2nd quoted paragraph is plain wrong. It does not show ignorance, but either low IQ of one who wrte it, or hi EQ if it's part of a greater scheme, to fool someone for whatever reason. Again, as far as it goes topicwise, it's plain wrong.
3rd quoted paragraph is vague, pure troll inductor.
Thekma, get a life and go away. what you preach is maybe good enough for listener's forum, in production forum you'll get nothing but what you're already geting.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 9, 2012, 6:49:09 AM12/9/12
to
Lux:
"Pure troll" my ASS.
I can hear what he's talking about under such circumstances as he describes. In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the analog side. When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
Call it troll bait, disagree with Diament all you want, it's too DAMN HOT!!
I once played my original "1984" LP and then played the remastered version of the CD. Guess what: the LP sounded much livelier. Sure, I had the volume up to 12 oclock to enjoy it, but at least the receiver was doing its job without straining.
For the remaster(wrong name for it actually!), I had to turn the volume down to 9 o'clock and it was still too loud and mushy it was so compressed.
See? I used my ears and not a DAW. The remaster CD was too F'KING HOT! It was overloading the gain stage of the receiver.
"Pure troll" my ASS.
I can hear what he's talking about under such circumstances as he describes. In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the analog side. When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
Call it troll bait, disagree with Diament all you want, it's too DAMN HOT!!
I once played my original "1984" LP and then played the remastered version of the CD. Guess what: the LP sounded much livelier. Sure, I had the volume up to 12 oclock to enjoy it, but at least the receiver was doing its job without straining.
For the remaster(wrong name for it actually!), I had to turn the volume down to 9 o'clock and it was still too loud and mushy it was so compressed.
See? I used my ears and not a DAW. The remaster CD was too F'KING HOT! It was overloading the gain stage of the receiver.
None
Dec 9, 2012, 8:43:42 AM12/9/12
to
<thekma sucks don...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3984280-7954-488d...@googlegroups.com...
>
> "Pure troll" my ASS.
Yup. You're a pure troll. And you're an ass. And the hole in your ass.
> I can hear what he's talking about under such circumstances as he
> describes. In production, for example, it's not necessary to have
> your peaks always hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's
> equivalent to +20dB on the analog side.
There is no such equivalence. That was explained to you in
detail, but you choose not to understand. You choose to
be a fucking moron instead. And you keep proving it.
Maybe you should learn to read before you try to learn
about audio.
news:c3984280-7954-488d...@googlegroups.com...
>
> "Pure troll" my ASS.
Yup. You're a pure troll. And you're an ass. And the hole in your ass.
> I can hear what he's talking about under such circumstances as he
> describes. In production, for example, it's not necessary to have
> your peaks always hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's
> equivalent to +20dB on the analog side.
detail, but you choose not to understand. You choose to
be a fucking moron instead. And you keep proving it.
Maybe you should learn to read before you try to learn
about audio.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 9, 2012, 9:29:20 AM12/9/12
to
None <no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>Maybe you should learn to read before you try to learn
>about audio.
The original poster has repeatedly been pointed to the Yamaha Sound
>
>Maybe you should learn to read before you try to learn
>about audio.
Reinforcement Handbook. However, he instead prefers to read material
of doubtful quality from the internet, because books are too expensive
for him. I suppose you get what you pay for.
None
Dec 9, 2012, 10:13:04 AM12/9/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ka2780$iqe$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> ... because books are too expensive for him.
You might have Little K-boy confused with another troll. "Mrs.
Maniac" was the one who said he couldn't afford a book. Different
species from the troll family. I don't think Crissie Trollercoaster
has used voluntary poverty as an excuse for his head being so
far up his arse.
news:ka2780$iqe$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> ... because books are too expensive for him.
You might have Little K-boy confused with another troll. "Mrs.
Maniac" was the one who said he couldn't afford a book. Different
species from the troll family. I don't think Crissie Trollercoaster
has used voluntary poverty as an excuse for his head being so
far up his arse.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 9, 2012, 10:58:47 AM12/9/12
to
with different names.
It's so hard to keep up the killfile these days.
None
Dec 9, 2012, 11:10:22 AM12/9/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ka2cfn$a6l$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> None <no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:ka2780$iqe$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>> ... because books are too expensive for him.
>>
>>You might have Little K-boy confused with another troll. "Mrs.
>>Maniac" was the one who said he couldn't afford a book. Different
>>species from the troll family. I don't think Crissie Trollercoaster
>>has used voluntary poverty as an excuse for his head being so
>>far up his arse.
>
> Are you sure these are different? They seem like the same troll
> with different names.
Mrs. Maniac is Anthony Atkielski, in Paris. Lazy fuck
>>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:ka2780$iqe$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>> ... because books are too expensive for him.
>>
>>You might have Little K-boy confused with another troll. "Mrs.
>>Maniac" was the one who said he couldn't afford a book. Different
>>species from the troll family. I don't think Crissie Trollercoaster
>>has used voluntary poverty as an excuse for his head being so
>>far up his arse.
>
> Are you sure these are different? They seem like the same troll
> with different names.
who refuses to spend any money, since he doesn't
like to work. Begs for people to just give him money.
Won't read a book because he's too stubborn.
Little K-boy is Chris, in Connecticut, who doesn't
beg for money, just attention. Won't read a book
because he wouldn't understand it, and he really
doesn't have any desire to learn.
Same troll family, different troll species. Sometimes
you can't tell the trolls without a scorecard. These
two have the same score: zero.
geoff
Dec 9, 2012, 2:54:29 PM12/9/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3984280-7954-488d...@googlegroups.com...
No you've not used your ears. You've used your psychological presconeptions
(misconceptions) to colour what you imagine you've heard.
geoff
Scott Dorsey
Dec 9, 2012, 2:54:34 PM12/9/12
to
>In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always
>hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the
>analog side. When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in
>Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
What does this have to do with how a volume control works? How did you
>hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the
>analog side. When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in
>Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
somehow get from how a volume control works to this?
>Call it troll bait, disagree with Diament all you want, it's too DAMN HOT!!
to do with how a volume control works. You are once again making connections
between unrelated subjects.
Please go away.
--Scott
hank alrich
Dec 9, 2012, 6:45:28 PM12/9/12
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always
> >hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the
> >analog side. When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in
> >Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
>
> What does this have to do with how a volume control works? How did you
> somehow get from how a volume control works to this?
He's demonstrating a cognitive short circuit.
> >In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always
> >hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the
> >analog side. When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in
> >Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
>
> What does this have to do with how a volume control works? How did you
> somehow get from how a volume control works to this?
mcp6453
Dec 9, 2012, 11:18:35 PM12/9/12
to Scott Dorsey
On 12/9/2012 9:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> None <no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you should learn to read before you try to learn
>> about audio.
>
> The original poster has repeatedly been pointed to the Yamaha Sound
> Reinforcement Handbook. However, he instead prefers to read material
> of doubtful quality from the internet, because books are too expensive
> for him. I suppose you get what you pay for.
Actually, I'm the original poster, and I'm not the one exhibiting the
> None <no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you should learn to read before you try to learn
>> about audio.
>
> The original poster has repeatedly been pointed to the Yamaha Sound
> Reinforcement Handbook. However, he instead prefers to read material
> of doubtful quality from the internet, because books are too expensive
> for him. I suppose you get what you pay for.
characteristics you mention. While this thread has gone way off course from the
question I asked, most of the information in the thread is good stuff.
Richard Webb
Dec 9, 2012, 7:31:17 PM12/9/12
to
On Sun 2012-Dec-09 10:58, Scott Dorsey writes:
>>You might have Little K-boy confused with another troll. "Mrs.
>>Maniac" was the one who said he couldn't afford a book. Different
>>species from the troll family. I don't think Crissie Trollercoaster
>>has used voluntary poverty as an excuse for his head being so
>>far up his arse.
> Are you sure these are different? They seem like the same troll
> with different names.
> It's so hard to keep up the killfile these days.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Mike Rivers
Dec 10, 2012, 7:46:57 AM12/10/12
to
On 12/9/2012 2:54 PM, geoff wrote:
> In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always
> hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the
> analog side.
There is no standard, even a de facto standard, for the
> In production, for example, it's not necessary to have your peaks always
> hitting the digital maximum( 0dBfs)! That's equivalent to +20dB on the
> analog side.
relationship between full scale digital level and analog
level. On consumer devices, 0 dBFS usually represents a
maximum (depending on the setting of the "volume control"
analog output of around +6 dBu. On "pro" gear, 0 dBFS tends
to correspond to an analog output in the +16 to +22 dBu range.
Clipping can occur anywhere in the system where there isn't
sufficient headroom. And then there's "inter-sample
overload" where reconstructing the digital stream produces a
peak between samples that exceeds the nominal 0 dBFS analog
output level. Or rather, it would exceed that level if the
analog stage following D/A conversion could accommodate it,
but typically analog outputs are designed to max out at 0 dBFS.
> When I run material like that through replay gain analysis in
> Foobar 2000 I get rg values in the minus TEENS.
words, don't just post a link. This will help both of us to
understand what you understand.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2012, 8:32:09 AM12/10/12
to
Mike Rivers:
Foobar2000 http://www.foobar2000.org/ is simply another multi-format audio player. It also has plugins that include analysis for replay gain and DR(Pleasurizemusic's DR Meter ver 1.1.1). It also has a rudimentary converter(I.E. cd to mp3 - but is VBR by default).
Most CDs I've checked on it require replay gain of a negative value(-.5, -1.7dB), indicating they are slightly hot according to whatever standard Foobar references. Only one Dave Grusin CD and a couple of my Telarc classical compilations actually need to be "turned up" - a positive replay value of 1 or 2dB.
CDs from after 1990 can register -5, while discs from after 2000 need to be "turned down" as much as RG -10 -15!!
On the DR side I got some surprising results for my original 1980s era CDs: Values from DR12 to DR16. Current efforts are lucky to hit as high as DR7 - although a single track, Katy Perry's "California Gurls" stands out at DR10. I never tire of listening to that one!
Why are "modern CDs" mastered so hot? Because digital allows for it! Digital does not "slowly buckle under the strain" like analog did. Cramming all the sonic energy of an album or indiv tracks between -4 and -0dBfs can be gotten away with.
Does this make it right? My conscience screams NO! And I don't care if I get trolled and flamed for admiring engineers with worldwide respect such as Barry Diament(whom by the way I can understand his writings with no problem), and, wanting to stick to standard engineering principles that have been in place since before CD was even a dream.
So you all just go on supporting hotter & hotter audio tracks and CDS. I may be a troll for standing by what I believe in, but I ain't no SHEEP.
Foobar2000 http://www.foobar2000.org/ is simply another multi-format audio player. It also has plugins that include analysis for replay gain and DR(Pleasurizemusic's DR Meter ver 1.1.1). It also has a rudimentary converter(I.E. cd to mp3 - but is VBR by default).
Most CDs I've checked on it require replay gain of a negative value(-.5, -1.7dB), indicating they are slightly hot according to whatever standard Foobar references. Only one Dave Grusin CD and a couple of my Telarc classical compilations actually need to be "turned up" - a positive replay value of 1 or 2dB.
CDs from after 1990 can register -5, while discs from after 2000 need to be "turned down" as much as RG -10 -15!!
On the DR side I got some surprising results for my original 1980s era CDs: Values from DR12 to DR16. Current efforts are lucky to hit as high as DR7 - although a single track, Katy Perry's "California Gurls" stands out at DR10. I never tire of listening to that one!
Why are "modern CDs" mastered so hot? Because digital allows for it! Digital does not "slowly buckle under the strain" like analog did. Cramming all the sonic energy of an album or indiv tracks between -4 and -0dBfs can be gotten away with.
Does this make it right? My conscience screams NO! And I don't care if I get trolled and flamed for admiring engineers with worldwide respect such as Barry Diament(whom by the way I can understand his writings with no problem), and, wanting to stick to standard engineering principles that have been in place since before CD was even a dream.
So you all just go on supporting hotter & hotter audio tracks and CDS. I may be a troll for standing by what I believe in, but I ain't no SHEEP.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 10, 2012, 10:40:43 AM12/10/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Rivers:
>
>Why are "modern CDs" mastered so hot? =A0Because digital allows for it! =A0=
>Digital does not "slowly buckle under the strain" like analog did. =A0Cramm=
>ing all the sonic energy of an album or indiv tracks between -4 and -0dBfs =
guys mastering for the jukebox market did.
--scott
>Mike Rivers:
>
>Why are "modern CDs" mastered so hot? =A0Because digital allows for it! =A0=
>Digital does not "slowly buckle under the strain" like analog did. =A0Cramm=
>ing all the sonic energy of an album or indiv tracks between -4 and -0dBfs =
>can be gotten away with.
Nahh, you can make an overdriven crappy-sounding LP or 45 too. Lots of
guys mastering for the jukebox market did.
--scott
Mike Rivers
Dec 10, 2012, 1:41:11 PM12/10/12
to
On 12/10/2012 8:32 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Foobar2000 is simply another
playback level adjustment? DR Meter????? Maybe an indicator
of peak to average ratio?
> Foobar2000 is simply another
> multi-format audio player. It also has plugins that
> include analysis for replay gain and DR(Pleasurizemusic's
> DR Meter ver 1.1.1).
What's "replay gain?" Is this some sort of normalized
> include analysis for replay gain and DR(Pleasurizemusic's
> DR Meter ver 1.1.1).
playback level adjustment? DR Meter????? Maybe an indicator
of peak to average ratio?
Nil
Dec 10, 2012, 1:49:29 PM12/10/12
to
On 10 Dec 2012, Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> What's "replay gain?" Is this some sort of normalized
> playback level adjustment? DR Meter????? Maybe an indicator
> of peak to average ratio?
Something like that. As I understand it, your music files get tagged
with numbers that indicate their max amplitude. That lets your (Replay
Gain enabled) music player compensate for their various volumes and
play them back at a more consistent level relative to each other.
rec.audio.pro:
> What's "replay gain?" Is this some sort of normalized
> playback level adjustment? DR Meter????? Maybe an indicator
> of peak to average ratio?
with numbers that indicate their max amplitude. That lets your (Replay
Gain enabled) music player compensate for their various volumes and
play them back at a more consistent level relative to each other.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 10, 2012, 1:53:06 PM12/10/12
to
pro audio world.
Nil
Dec 10, 2012, 2:43:57 PM12/10/12
to
On 10 Dec 2012, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> Yes, this is an MP3 thing,
I think it can work with any audio file format that supports embedded
information tags.
> it's not something you'll encounter in the pro audio world.
I believe some automated radio systems use it.
Anyway, so what? You encounter it (but not often enough) in the real
world of listeners, of which the pro audio world is a part.
rec.audio.pro:
> Yes, this is an MP3 thing,
information tags.
> it's not something you'll encounter in the pro audio world.
Anyway, so what? You encounter it (but not often enough) in the real
world of listeners, of which the pro audio world is a part.
Ron Capik
Dec 10, 2012, 3:08:31 PM12/10/12
to
On 12/10/2012 1:41 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 8:32 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Foobar2000 is simply another
>> multi-format audio player. It also has plugins that
>> include analysis for replay gain and DR(Pleasurizemusic's
>> DR Meter ver 1.1.1).
>
> What's "replay gain?" Is this some sort of normalized playback level
> adjustment? DR Meter????? Maybe an indicator of peak to average ratio?
>
>
I never heard of it either, so I did a search.
> On 12/10/2012 8:32 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Foobar2000 is simply another
>> multi-format audio player. It also has plugins that
>> include analysis for replay gain and DR(Pleasurizemusic's
>> DR Meter ver 1.1.1).
>
> What's "replay gain?" Is this some sort of normalized playback level
> adjustment? DR Meter????? Maybe an indicator of peak to average ratio?
>
>
It doesn't look like anything I'd have a need for.
Here's a snippet from Wiki:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The original ReplayGain proposal specified an 8-byte field in the header
of any
file. Most implementations now use tags for ReplayGain information. FLAC and
Ogg Vorbis use the REPLAYGAIN_* Vorbis comment fields. MP3 files usually
use ID3v2. Other formats such as AAC and WMA use their native tag formats
with a specially formatted tag entry listing the track's gain and peak
loudness.
ReplayGain utilities usually add metadata to the audio files without
altering the
original audio data. Alternatively, a tool can amplify or attenuate the
data itself
and save the result to another, gain-adjusted audio file; this is not
perfectly
reversible in most cases. Some lossy audio formats, such as MP3, are
structured
in a way that they encode the volume of each compressed frame in a
stream, and
tools such as MP3Gain take advantage of this for directly applying the gain
adjustment to MP3 files, adding undo information so that the process is
reversible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every reference I've found thus far calls it a proposed standard but
I've found
nothing about it being adopted yet. Then too, I haven't done an
extensive search.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Arny Krueger
Dec 10, 2012, 4:26:29 PM12/10/12
to
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1kusi3r.16o8sv11xi0wwiN%walk...@nv.net...
> I agree. People can be completely wrong about something directly
> pertinent to their work, and still deliver good work. The world is weird
> that way. <g>
It seems like a certain number of live sound and recording people fit into
this category, lots.
PStamler
Dec 10, 2012, 4:36:58 PM12/10/12
to
My impression has been that the engineers who crank out horribly squashed recordings are not doing so because they want to, or "because they can". They're doing it because the people who sign their checks (producers, record companies, and, yes, musicians) demand it. The engineers know it sounds like crap, but unemployment sounds like crap too.
Peace,
Paul
Peace,
Paul
Arny Krueger
Dec 10, 2012, 4:49:26 PM12/10/12
to
"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:6a38e071-aad5-433c...@googlegroups.com...
experience. :-(
Let's face it, for each of us it is either a business or a hobby. If it is a
business, then the goal is to maximize return on investment within legal and
moral limits. I see no moral dilemma related to people who wish to knowingly
and intentionally listen to substandard sound. It is their money, and their
enjoyment that is at stake. I do not want to impose my preferences on them.
hank alrich
Dec 10, 2012, 6:08:14 PM12/10/12
to
Thank you, Paul.
One who finishes wallboard may or may not like texture. One who makes a
profession of finishing wallboard will do a fine texturing anyway, when
it's tied to the paycheck.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2012, 6:40:55 PM12/10/12
to
PStamler: "My impression has been that the engineers who crank out horribly squashed recordings are not doing so because they want to, or "because they can". They're doing it because the people who sign their checks (producers, record companies, and, yes, musicians) demand it. The engineers know it sounds like crap, but unemployment sounds like crap too."
I came to that conclusion along time ago. I never thought any mixing or mastering eng would conscientiously turn "Back In Black" into white noise unless it was their own performance they were producing.
Like I said, my mastering business would specifically target acts who cherished quality sound over selling billions of DR6 CDs that clip(!)
I came to that conclusion along time ago. I never thought any mixing or mastering eng would conscientiously turn "Back In Black" into white noise unless it was their own performance they were producing.
Like I said, my mastering business would specifically target acts who cherished quality sound over selling billions of DR6 CDs that clip(!)
Steve King
Dec 10, 2012, 7:48:11 PM12/10/12
to
Steve King
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2012, 8:34:02 PM12/10/12
to
Steve K:
How's sqaushing music working out for you??
How's sqaushing music working out for you??
None
Dec 10, 2012, 9:22:18 PM12/10/12
to
<the kboy dro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74d1ffe3-00a3-4e15...@googlegroups.com...
pretending that.
> I may be a troll
Of course you are.
> for standing by what I believe in, but I ain't no SHEEP.
No, you're a jackass
news:74d1ffe3-00a3-4e15...@googlegroups.com...
> So you all just go on supporting hotter & hotter audio tracks and
> CDS.
Nobody's supporting that, and you're a shit-head for
> CDS.
pretending that.
> I may be a troll
> for standing by what I believe in, but I ain't no SHEEP.
None
Dec 10, 2012, 9:23:13 PM12/10/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6639a560-16be-4c9e...@googlegroups.com...
never will. You're simply too stupid.
news:6639a560-16be-4c9e...@googlegroups.com...
> Like I said, my mastering business
You don't have a mastering business. And you
never will. You're simply too stupid.
None
Dec 10, 2012, 9:25:59 PM12/10/12
to
"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:ka5vqb$ab1$1...@dont-email.me...
book fantasy. Chrissie Trollercoaster
seems to live in a junior-high loser's
sci-fi comic book fantasy. He's probably
got some snappy line from some loser
"superhero" like The Fat Fury as a comeback.
news:ka5vqb$ab1$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Like I said, my mastering business would specifically target acts
>> who cherished quality sound over selling billions of DR6 CDs that
>> clip(!)
>
> How's that business model working out for you?
It's not a business model, it's a comic
>> who cherished quality sound over selling billions of DR6 CDs that
>> clip(!)
>
> How's that business model working out for you?
book fantasy. Chrissie Trollercoaster
seems to live in a junior-high loser's
sci-fi comic book fantasy. He's probably
got some snappy line from some loser
"superhero" like The Fat Fury as a comeback.
hank alrich
Dec 10, 2012, 10:51:31 PM12/10/12
to
Blackwood, Bernie Grundman and the rest of those wankers.
hank alrich
Dec 10, 2012, 10:51:31 PM12/10/12
to
geoff
Dec 11, 2012, 12:09:04 AM12/11/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74d1ffe3-00a3-4e15...@googlegroups.com...
Mike Rivers:
>Foobar2000 http://www.foobar2000.org/ is simply another multi-format audio
>player. It also has >plugins that include analysis for replay gain and
>DR(Pleasurizemusic's DR Meter ver 1.1.1). It >also has a rudimentary
>converter(I.E. cd to mp3 - but is VBR by default).
>Most CDs I've checked on it require replay gain of a negative
>value(-.5, -1.7dB), indicating they >are slightly hot according to whatever
>standard Foobar references. Only one Dave Grusin CD >and a couple of my
>Telarc classical compilations actually need to be "turned up" - a positive
> >replay value of 1 or 2dB.
This is all totally irrelevant. No CDs require a 'replay gain", whatever TF
>Foobar2000 http://www.foobar2000.org/ is simply another multi-format audio
>player. It also has >plugins that include analysis for replay gain and
>DR(Pleasurizemusic's DR Meter ver 1.1.1). It >also has a rudimentary
>converter(I.E. cd to mp3 - but is VBR by default).
>Most CDs I've checked on it require replay gain of a negative
>value(-.5, -1.7dB), indicating they >are slightly hot according to whatever
>standard Foobar references. Only one Dave Grusin CD >and a couple of my
>Telarc classical compilations actually need to be "turned up" - a positive
> >replay value of 1 or 2dB.
that is. Unless you insist on always listening to your music at full
volume, with every link in your chain set to near overload !
>CDs from after 1990 can register -5, while discs from after 2000 need to be
>"turned down" as >much as RG -10 -15!!
could have the peak level at -20dBFS, and still have a squished flat-line
undynamic music.
>On the DR side I got some surprising results for my original 1980s era CDs:
>Values from DR12 >to DR16. Current efforts are lucky to hit as high as
>DR7 - although a single track, Katy Perry's >"California Gurls" stands out
>at DR10. I never tire of listening to that one!
conservative mastering, or to avoid stressing early crappy digital
converters.
>Why are "modern CDs" mastered so hot? Because digital allows for it!
>Digital does not "slowly >buckle under the strain" like analog did.
>Cramming all the sonic energy of an album or indiv tracks >between -4
>and -0dBfs can be gotten away with.
whatever misguided reason. You could have hyper-compressed analogue sources
and had them on tape or vinyl, even then. Yes, it's easier on digital.
>Does this make it right? My conscience screams NO! And I don't care if I
>get trolled and flamed >for admiring engineers with worldwide respect such
>as Barry Diament(whom by the way I can >understand his writings with no
>problem), and, wanting to stick to standard engineering principles >that
>have been in place since before CD was even a dream.
for him or you.
>So you all just go on supporting hotter & hotter audio tracks and CDS. I
>may be a troll for >standing by what I believe in, but I ain't no SHEEP.
with the peak digital level. It has to do with the average RMS level.
geoff
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2012, 6:14:28 AM12/11/12
to
Geoff:
When people amass lots of digital audio files on their computers, iPods, or wherever they keep them, they notice they have to adjust the volume sometimes every other song.
So several providers came out with programs that add tags to the songs that allow them to play back at roughly the same volume. Some are peak-based, but the better ones are, as you mentioned, RMS-based.
MP3Gain is one of the better ones out there, but it is obviously limited as to what audio file type it supports. Foobar2000 supports a wider range of audio types. iTunes and the Apple mobiles have "Sound Check" - but i don't know if that is peak- or rms-based.
And yes, I do understand that RMS best determines how loud a track or hot it will be, but I also understand that you have to reduce the peaks to get that RMS value up. And performing the audio equivalent of reducing the heights of all skyscrapers in NYC to no more than 30 stories, and then raising Manhattan Island itself 50 stories up to "makeup" for it goes against my conscience, even if a client demanded it. It's not technically correct, and I would respectfully decline that business.
Compression/limiting are powerful tools. No human drummer or guitarist will hit the skins or pick the strings with exactly the same intensity on every beat. Conservative limiting will even out the extreme variations while preserving the organic feel of the original session.
But performing parallel compression and then limiting on top of that so those strings and drums all blend together like dog vomit? No one here can justify that and get me onboard!
When people amass lots of digital audio files on their computers, iPods, or wherever they keep them, they notice they have to adjust the volume sometimes every other song.
So several providers came out with programs that add tags to the songs that allow them to play back at roughly the same volume. Some are peak-based, but the better ones are, as you mentioned, RMS-based.
MP3Gain is one of the better ones out there, but it is obviously limited as to what audio file type it supports. Foobar2000 supports a wider range of audio types. iTunes and the Apple mobiles have "Sound Check" - but i don't know if that is peak- or rms-based.
And yes, I do understand that RMS best determines how loud a track or hot it will be, but I also understand that you have to reduce the peaks to get that RMS value up. And performing the audio equivalent of reducing the heights of all skyscrapers in NYC to no more than 30 stories, and then raising Manhattan Island itself 50 stories up to "makeup" for it goes against my conscience, even if a client demanded it. It's not technically correct, and I would respectfully decline that business.
Compression/limiting are powerful tools. No human drummer or guitarist will hit the skins or pick the strings with exactly the same intensity on every beat. Conservative limiting will even out the extreme variations while preserving the organic feel of the original session.
But performing parallel compression and then limiting on top of that so those strings and drums all blend together like dog vomit? No one here can justify that and get me onboard!
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2012, 6:34:26 AM12/11/12
to
Geoff: "Old CDs may have had conservative peak levels because of unnecessarily
The bottom version SHOULD get someone's ass FIRED - or at least a lesson on what a properly produced recording should sound like!
If smashing the sound - as in that "Head Like A Hole" remaster- is SOP nowadays, then I am DAMN PROUD to violate so-called SOP and do it THE RIGHT WAY.
"conservative" my ass. Turn the damn volume knob up if you want it louder....
conservative mastering, or to avoid stressing early crappy"
"Conservative"?? You call the waveform on top: http://audiogeekzine.com/wp-content/uploads/headlikeahole_waveform.jpg CONSERVATIVE? I call it CORRECT.
The bottom version SHOULD get someone's ass FIRED - or at least a lesson on what a properly produced recording should sound like!
If smashing the sound - as in that "Head Like A Hole" remaster- is SOP nowadays, then I am DAMN PROUD to violate so-called SOP and do it THE RIGHT WAY.
"conservative" my ass. Turn the damn volume knob up if you want it louder....
Mike Rivers
Dec 11, 2012, 7:24:46 AM12/11/12
to
strive to make recordings loud. When this becomes the
standard, next generation engineers will learn that this is
what "good" is.
Perhaps they're learning by the "Don't do as I say, do as I
do" process.
Mike Rivers
Dec 11, 2012, 7:29:35 AM12/11/12
to
On 12/11/2012 6:14 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> When people amass lots of digital audio files on their
> computers, iPods, or wherever they keep them, they notice
> they have to adjust the volume sometimes every other
> song.
Whose problem is this? Does the listener need to hear every
> When people amass lots of digital audio files on their
> computers, iPods, or wherever they keep them, they notice
> they have to adjust the volume sometimes every other
> song.
song at the same volume? How boring.
None
Dec 11, 2012, 7:56:07 AM12/11/12
to
<little boy k @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b081ff56-2815-4917...@googlegroups.com...
even though he is clueless.
> If smashing the sound - as in that "Head Like A Hole" remaster- is
> SOP nowadays, then I am DAMN PROUD to violate so-called SOP and do
> it THE RIGHT WAY.
No you're not. You don't do it the "right way"
or the "wrong way". You don't do it at all.
You're a wannabe. A poseur. A wanker who
doesn't have a clue. Don't pretend that you
actually know something about mixing or
mastering. You've already been identified as
a liar on that subject.
The KOOKY CAPS LOCK doesn't really
help you make your case, either. Now
be a good little boy and fuck off.
news:b081ff56-2815-4917...@googlegroups.com...
> - or at least a lesson on what a properly produced recording should
> sound like!
LOL! Little boy thinks he can give lessons.
> sound like!
even though he is clueless.
> If smashing the sound - as in that "Head Like A Hole" remaster- is
> SOP nowadays, then I am DAMN PROUD to violate so-called SOP and do
> it THE RIGHT WAY.
or the "wrong way". You don't do it at all.
You're a wannabe. A poseur. A wanker who
doesn't have a clue. Don't pretend that you
actually know something about mixing or
mastering. You've already been identified as
a liar on that subject.
The KOOKY CAPS LOCK doesn't really
help you make your case, either. Now
be a good little boy and fuck off.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2012, 7:59:41 AM12/11/12
to
Mike Rivers: "Whose problem is this? Does the listener need to hear every
Today it's a Fleetwood Mac from '77 followed by Adele from last year followed by Poison from 15 years ago and then a 5 year old track by Usher. Very likely a playlist like that will vary greatly in rms values, let alone dynamic ranges, as opposed to songs engineered to flow together on an album. See the difference now?
Replay gain "yanks" all those various vintages to within 1dB rms of a predetermined level(either by default or as user specified). Now, those same songs I listed above for example all sound roughly the same volume, regardless of dynamic range. RG applies no processing(eq, compression) to those tracks, it just tags them all a specified playback level.
No more having to pardon yourself from a conversation at your dinner party every 5 min to tweak the go____mned volume control! :)
song at the same volume? How boring. "
The problem is how people listen to music today. Most no longer listen to whole album sides, where the levels are all relatively matched. I don't recall a single album, on cassette, vinyl, or CD where I had to get up and adjust the volume after every couple songs.
Today it's a Fleetwood Mac from '77 followed by Adele from last year followed by Poison from 15 years ago and then a 5 year old track by Usher. Very likely a playlist like that will vary greatly in rms values, let alone dynamic ranges, as opposed to songs engineered to flow together on an album. See the difference now?
Replay gain "yanks" all those various vintages to within 1dB rms of a predetermined level(either by default or as user specified). Now, those same songs I listed above for example all sound roughly the same volume, regardless of dynamic range. RG applies no processing(eq, compression) to those tracks, it just tags them all a specified playback level.
No more having to pardon yourself from a conversation at your dinner party every 5 min to tweak the go____mned volume control! :)
Mike Rivers
Dec 11, 2012, 12:46:28 PM12/11/12
to
On 12/11/2012 7:59 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> The problem is how people listen to music today.
> The problem is how people listen to music today.
> Today it's a Fleetwood Mac from '77 followed by Adele
> from last year followed by Poison from 15 years ago and
> then a 5 year old track by Usher.
Yup, it's a problem with the listeners. Maybe they should
> from last year followed by Poison from 15 years ago and
> then a 5 year old track by Usher.
get over it. But then I know how inconvenient it is to
adjust the volume on a phone or computer. I suspect that
people who still sit down on the living room couch to listen
don't listen to their own playlists, but prefer to listen to
albums. But this, too shall pass.
> No more having to pardon yourself from a conversation at
> your dinner party every 5 min to tweak the go____mned
> volume control! :)
each other and not trying to listen to music. And after, or
before dinner, we play music.
Ron Capik
Dec 11, 2012, 1:51:44 PM12/11/12
to
On 12/11/2012 12:46 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 7:59 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The problem is how people listen to music today.
>
>> Today it's a Fleetwood Mac from '77 followed by Adele
>> from last year followed by Poison from 15 years ago and
>> then a 5 year old track by Usher.
>
> Yup, it's a problem with the listeners. Maybe they should get over it.
> But then I know how inconvenient it is to adjust the volume on a phone
> or computer. I suspect that people who still sit down on the living room
> couch to listen don't listen to their own playlists, but prefer to
> listen to albums. But this, too shall pass.
>
>> No more having to pardon yourself from a conversation at
>> your dinner party every 5 min to tweak the go____mned
>> volume control! :)
>
> At a dinner party, I hope my guests will be talking to me or each other
> and not trying to listen to music. And after, or before dinner, we play
> music.
>
>
I totally agree. One would hope that some effort was put in to the
> On 12/11/2012 7:59 AM, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The problem is how people listen to music today.
>
>> Today it's a Fleetwood Mac from '77 followed by Adele
>> from last year followed by Poison from 15 years ago and
>> then a 5 year old track by Usher.
>
> Yup, it's a problem with the listeners. Maybe they should get over it.
> But then I know how inconvenient it is to adjust the volume on a phone
> or computer. I suspect that people who still sit down on the living room
> couch to listen don't listen to their own playlists, but prefer to
> listen to albums. But this, too shall pass.
>
>> No more having to pardon yourself from a conversation at
>> your dinner party every 5 min to tweak the go____mned
>> volume control! :)
>
> At a dinner party, I hope my guests will be talking to me or each other
> and not trying to listen to music. And after, or before dinner, we play
> music.
>
>
music selection for a gathering, including checking level compatibility.
I've seen lots of articles over the years on how to create a great party
mix and none of them say set the playback device on autopilot. I'd use
different dynamics for pre-show house music than for a holiday party
or a simple social gathering. Conversation levels tend to track the
music level. It's good to drop the level 20dB or so periodically to
reset the room. then slowly build the levels again. [Performers and
DJs do it all the time.]
Now if you're gonna pop in the ear buds and set your (whatever)-pod
to shuffle play for background noise... maybe then one might want to
"level" everything.
[YMMV]
geoff
Dec 11, 2012, 3:18:09 PM12/11/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:289c0a86-5b64-404a...@googlegroups.com...
Geoff:
>When people amass lots of digital audio files on their computers, iPods, or
>wherever they keep them, they notice they have to adjust the volume
>sometimes every other song.
This is to do with music library management - NOTHING to do with sound or
>When people amass lots of digital audio files on their computers, iPods, or
>wherever they keep them, they notice they have to adjust the volume
>sometimes every other song.
production quality or choices.
>But performing parallel compression and then limiting on top of that so
>those strings and drums all >blend together like dog vomit? No one here
>can justify that and get me onboard!
manement ! They are (often misguoided) production decisions.
geoff
geoff
Dec 11, 2012, 3:22:21 PM12/11/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b081ff56-2815-4917...@googlegroups.com...
difference to the sound quality if a CD peaks at -10 dBFS or -0.3 dBFS.
Apart from a bit or so of resolution for the pedantic, or poor quality DA
converters which are relatively a thing of the past.
geoff
None
Dec 11, 2012, 5:45:07 PM12/11/12
to
<li'l krissie tro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b707434-2118-4361...@googlegroups.com...
So it's a way of reducing dynamic range over the
long term. Gee, isn't that pretty much the same
thing you've been throwing tantrums over? Are
you yelling at yourself, telling yourself you should
get off your own lawn?
news:4b707434-2118-4361...@googlegroups.com...
long term. Gee, isn't that pretty much the same
thing you've been throwing tantrums over? Are
you yelling at yourself, telling yourself you should
get off your own lawn?
Luxey
Dec 11, 2012, 7:14:22 PM12/11/12
to
You must be using Mac. Windows media player's got that feature for about a decade. Not that anybody reaally care to use it.
Mike Rivers
Dec 11, 2012, 8:29:04 PM12/11/12
to
On 12/11/2012 5:45 PM, None wrote:
>> Replay gain "yanks" all those various vintages to within
>> 1dB rms of a predetermined level
>> Replay gain "yanks" all those various vintages to within
>> 1dB rms of a predetermined level
> So it's a way of reducing dynamic range over the
> long term.
It may or may not reduce the dynamic range. I don't know how
> long term.
it actually works (and probably nobody else here really
does, either). It would be easy to peak limit and normalize
based on a single "how hard to work" number embedded in the
file metadata. But since this gain is determined by the
source file and not by the player, it probably doesn't shoot
for a specific peak/average ratio and do what it needs to do
in order to achieve it.
Ron Capik
Dec 11, 2012, 8:35:46 PM12/11/12
to
On 12/11/2012 5:45 PM, None wrote:
interpolate and then effectively "level" random tracks of
everything from doo wop to death metal. Could an algorithm
ever interpret the context of a sequence of tracks and apply
relevant leveling? Can that then be extended to apply to
totally random tracks and generas?
Fixed average noise levels ...maybe. Context relevant
levels ...I don't think so.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2012, 10:23:15 PM12/11/12
to
Don't ASSume, Luxey. :)
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2012, 10:26:11 PM12/11/12
to
Mike R:
No compression/equalization/noise reduction/echo/reverb/flange/whatever is imparted by replay-gain software.
I checked waveforms of original vs RG'd song files, and they vary only in amplitude.
No compression/equalization/noise reduction/echo/reverb/flange/whatever is imparted by replay-gain software.
I checked waveforms of original vs RG'd song files, and they vary only in amplitude.
Ralph Barone
Dec 12, 2012, 1:19:21 AM12/12/12
to
Jordan to Maroon 5 slightly less jarring.
Luxey
Dec 12, 2012, 2:30:10 AM12/12/12
to
среда, 12. децембар 2012. 04.23.15 UTC+1, thekma...@gmail.com је написао/ла:
> Don't ASSume, Luxey. :)
ASS u?! Who, me?! I will not ass you. Asses are never on my "to do" list.
> Don't ASSume, Luxey. :)
Oh, got it now. You're used as assing toy 'round a familly. Keep it there.
Public generaly dissaproves that shit.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 6:08:22 AM12/12/12
to
Luxe: Welcome to Amerika, Komrade.
You *assumed* I was operating on Mac. I do not.
Here in USA we have expression: "When you assume
you make ASS out of U and ME!"
Got it now?
You *assumed* I was operating on Mac. I do not.
Here in USA we have expression: "When you assume
you make ASS out of U and ME!"
Got it now?
Mike Rivers
Dec 12, 2012, 7:15:52 AM12/12/12
to
On 12/12/2012 1:19 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> It isn't anywhere near perfect, but it does make the segue from Louis
> Jordan to Maroon 5 slightly less jarring.
What's really needed here is something that prevents
> It isn't anywhere near perfect, but it does make the segue from Louis
> Jordan to Maroon 5 slightly less jarring.
transitions like that in a "random" playing sequence. But I
know that having said that, there will be several responses
saying "I love playlists like that."
Please restrain yourselves.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 8:41:04 AM12/12/12
to
Mike R: "What's really needed here is something that
I believe it was called something like "replay gain". Ring a bell?
prevents transitions like that in a "random" playing sequence.
But I know that having said that, there will be several
responses "
Uhh, what have I been describing on here in my last 4 or so replies?
But I know that having said that, there will be several
responses "
I believe it was called something like "replay gain". Ring a bell?
Nil
Dec 12, 2012, 8:56:44 AM12/12/12
to
On 12 Dec 2012, thekma...@gmail.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> Mike R: "What's really needed here is something that
> prevents transitions like that in a "random" playing sequence.
> But I know that having said that, there will be several
> responses "
>
> Uhh, what have I been describing on here in my last 4 or so replies?
Uhh, no it isn't.
> Mike R: "What's really needed here is something that
> prevents transitions like that in a "random" playing sequence.
> But I know that having said that, there will be several
> responses "
>
> Uhh, what have I been describing on here in my last 4 or so replies?
> I believe it was called something like "replay gain". Ring a bell?
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 9:08:21 AM12/12/12
to
Nil:
I'm looking out of my conductor's cab and it appears to me that YOUR train is about to hit the end-stop in Grand Central.
I have been using mp3Gain replay software for nearly three years and since then have never had the "jarring transitions from random play sequences" Mike Rivers described.
I'm replying to the CD Rips Clipping thread. I don't know what thread you intended to reply to.
I'm looking out of my conductor's cab and it appears to me that YOUR train is about to hit the end-stop in Grand Central.
I have been using mp3Gain replay software for nearly three years and since then have never had the "jarring transitions from random play sequences" Mike Rivers described.
I'm replying to the CD Rips Clipping thread. I don't know what thread you intended to reply to.
Luxey
Dec 12, 2012, 9:42:40 AM12/12/12
to
Never crossed my mind. That's why I gave such an unrelated response.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 9:44:59 AM12/12/12
to
No problem at all Lux! Got more Americanisms for
you if u like.
"Put things back where you found 'em!"
"If it ain't broke don't fix it", etc...
you if u like.
"Put things back where you found 'em!"
"If it ain't broke don't fix it", etc...
Luxey
Dec 12, 2012, 9:49:07 AM12/12/12
to
Are you serious? No way.
Already told you, re random playlist, pull your head out of assumed americanism, they switched to pseudo random couple posts ago, but that message's lost in cyberspace. Should it appear asomewhere ...
Already told you, re random playlist, pull your head out of assumed americanism, they switched to pseudo random couple posts ago, but that message's lost in cyberspace. Should it appear asomewhere ...
Scott Dorsey
Dec 12, 2012, 9:54:07 AM12/12/12
to
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>It may or may not reduce the dynamic range. I don't know how
>it actually works (and probably nobody else here really
>does, either). It would be easy to peak limit and normalize
>based on a single "how hard to work" number embedded in the
>file metadata. But since this gain is determined by the
>source file and not by the player, it probably doesn't shoot
>for a specific peak/average ratio and do what it needs to do
>in order to achieve it.
It doesn't reduce the dynamic range. It just provides a reference level
>
>It may or may not reduce the dynamic range. I don't know how
>it actually works (and probably nobody else here really
>does, either). It would be easy to peak limit and normalize
>based on a single "how hard to work" number embedded in the
>file metadata. But since this gain is determined by the
>source file and not by the player, it probably doesn't shoot
>for a specific peak/average ratio and do what it needs to do
>in order to achieve it.
telling the mp3 player to play it back with the gain turned up this far.
And, like all such things, it's being badly abused by people setting it too
high.... but the end user can turn it down too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 10:01:55 AM12/12/12
to
Scott D: "It doesn't reduce the dynamic range"
Nobody said it does! Man does this thread have multiple personality disorder or what??
Nobody said it does! Man does this thread have multiple personality disorder or what??
Scott Dorsey
Dec 12, 2012, 10:05:15 AM12/12/12
to
<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nil:
>
>I'm looking out of my conductor's cab and it appears to me that YOUR train is about to hit the end-stop in Grand Central.
>
>I have been using mp3Gain replay software for nearly three years and since then have never had the "jarring transitions from random play sequences" Mike Rivers described.
>
Let me tell you, if you play the second Brandenburg concerto and then you
>Nil:
>
>I'm looking out of my conductor's cab and it appears to me that YOUR train is about to hit the end-stop in Grand Central.
>
>I have been using mp3Gain replay software for nearly three years and since then have never had the "jarring transitions from random play sequences" Mike Rivers described.
>
play Anarchy in the UK afterward, you will have a jarring transition no
matter how the gains are set.
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 10:07:36 AM12/12/12
to
Lux:
Read back to where I first described replay gain.
I succinctly provided an example where songs from the '70s, '90s, and now, varying genres, and different artists, were played in a row.
That can happen both intentionally, as in a playlist, or randomly,
as when the iPod is set to "shuffle".
If that ain't random playback then I'm on the wrong planet!
Read back to where I first described replay gain.
I succinctly provided an example where songs from the '70s, '90s, and now, varying genres, and different artists, were played in a row.
That can happen both intentionally, as in a playlist, or randomly,
as when the iPod is set to "shuffle".
If that ain't random playback then I'm on the wrong planet!
thekma...@gmail.com
Dec 12, 2012, 10:12:12 AM12/12/12
to
Scott D:
I never implied that RG was perfect. All I can say is that it has reduced my need to constantly adjust volume, in my living room, my car, or via headphones, from every other song to almost NEVER.
Sure, I still have to adjust the volume - incoming phone calls, someone with hard hearing, etc, usually external influences, but RARELY due to the playback of my collection.
Y
M
M
V
Words to live by.
I never implied that RG was perfect. All I can say is that it has reduced my need to constantly adjust volume, in my living room, my car, or via headphones, from every other song to almost NEVER.
Sure, I still have to adjust the volume - incoming phone calls, someone with hard hearing, etc, usually external influences, but RARELY due to the playback of my collection.
Y
M
M
V
Words to live by.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages