• 06-04-2004, 06:38 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    No, I don't think so. The quality of radio stations compressors/limiters all over the world varies. Most of them do not sound very good, and can really change the flavor(and timbre)of a mix. The harder these limiter/compressors have to work, the worse they sound. So the smart thing to do is to master the CD using GOOD compression/limiting so as to limit the need for limiting/compression at the radio station level. This way you know it what it will pretty much sound like when played over the air.
    Thank you for your opinion.

    Quote:

    If that were the case, then nobody would request that we push the levels. Also doing a mix especially for radio stations will require less use of the stations limiter/compressor. In the long run this makes the product sound better over the air.
    I refer to the authorities I just quoted.

    Quote:

    I think his opinion is one of many I have heard. Since this is not my area of expertise, his word is just as good as any.
    Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.

    Quote:

    Chris, I really understand your frustration. Put yourself in my shoes, I work really hard to do a high quality mix, then have to make compromises due to the media source its going to, and to please my client. Most of the time the client is happy, but I am not
    I do understand. I have had to release creative work many times that I was ashamed of, but was forced to produce, if I wanted to get a check. Simply put: it sucks.

    -Chris
  • 06-05-2004, 07:52 AM
    Mr Peabody
    Chris;

    You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.
  • 06-07-2004, 01:38 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.
    I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from. The level war was not created by mixers and mastering engineers, it was created by marketing and producers. In the link you have provided, every example that he sites with good levels for high quality reproduction came BEFORE the marketing departments of major record labels gained a larger share of the decision making in the production of product. I don't think Bob Katz is BSing, I just don't think he is painting the larger picture very well.

    Every radio station in the world is not filled full of Orban products. There are MANY MANY different manufacturers of broadcasting equipment. Everyone of these guys has an opinion about broadcasting standards, equipment, and how they are employed in the field. You can if you desire take both of these gentlemens words as absolute, or you can listen to the thousands of other which offer a differing opinion of the subject matter. As I have stated earlier this business if full of opinions, and those that rebutt them. If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs.


    Quote:

    And I totally disagree with the statement Telarc shouldn't be singled out. Them and Sheffield tout themselves as being superior recording and sound quality. If they are just another commercial CD company then they misrepresent themselves which is also fraud
    Have you read ANY of the content in this thread. How in the heck do you think that Telarc and Sheffield are immune to any market driven compromises. They are business as well as record companies. Do you think it is wise for them NOT to compete with the other record companies, and then go out of business just to satisfy you? That's unreasonable, as it is for you to blame them specifically. There is racism and greed in the world, can I blame you as part of the problem since you exist in the world? I don't think so. Telarc and Sheffield didn't create this problem, all they are doing is competing againist other's who not only initiated it(marketing depts and producers), but continue to drive it.

    If you do not understand compromise based on competition, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it. You live in a world driven by competition, you should understand this well or you have been living in a cave.
  • 06-07-2004, 05:28 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Terrence
    You can blame me for racism, if I was one who took part in it. Your analogy don't hold water.

    What is the big competition? Either you like an artist or you don't. Do you all shop by label? Someone might if they were looking for an exceptional recording, that is where Telarc and Sheffield have dropped the ball. They built their reputation on supposedly giving consumers the best recordings possible. I mean, do they get a brass ring for making the hottest recording levels? What is the point? If they wanted to compete, it seems the best sound quality would win. It's not like you're about the see Sutton on the AMA's doing a duet with Nelly, she's not exactly mainstream. That's pure crap Bishop unloaded about competing.

    Does anyone know what the advantage of a hot recording is? What will I hear in comparison to a recording with lower levels? I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.

    I can't really believe the hot levels are for the broadcast industry because there are probably tons of recordings that were made before the big high level push, does that mean they don't get played anymore? What if broadcasters start playing SACD, does that mean SACD sound will be sacraficed on the same alter as CD? Many larger market stations don't even play CD anymore, it's all automated on computer. And again Telarc and simular high end recording companies don't exactly have top 100 artists, so Bishop's excuse don't fly.

    Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.
  • 06-07-2004, 09:41 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Chris;

    You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.

    Hold on now! When I say I was going to buy a SACD player? I might. But not now(I need to buy a new pair of headphones at the moment). However, the very least I can do is take the SACD version, factory sealed, and sell it on ebay. :-)

    -Chris
  • 06-07-2004, 09:47 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from...

    If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs...

    I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

    Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

    -Chris
  • 06-08-2004, 08:32 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

    Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

    -Chris

    Chris, I do not think that calling marketing departments "ignorant" is particularly wise. It is easy for you to sit where you do, and evaluate what they do, and critisize it. You would find it infinitely harder to sit in their seat and take the same perspective that you have now.

    As far as Bob Katz, there is no conflicting statement at all. Bob Katz strictly talks about levels in terms of ultimate sound quality. What he does not speak of is the role that the marketing departments have played in this level war, the influence of a customers decision on the mastering engineer, and meeting customer needs so you can stay in business. He presents one perspective, but he doesn't discuss the influence the others put on that one.
  • 06-08-2004, 04:25 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    You can blame me for racism, if I was one who took part in it. Your analogy don't hold water.

    Sorry Mr Peabody, but my analogy is spot on. You are singling out two companies out of a whole industry to castigate to no end about a problem they didn't start, and could not change even if they wanted to. Keeping things in perspective, Telarc and Sheffield are a pimple on the butt when you look at where their standing is industry wide.

    Quote:

    What is the big competition? Either you like an artist or you don't.
    This shows how little you know about both the record industry, and the broadcast industry.

    Quote:

    Do you all shop by label? Someone might if they were looking for an exceptional recording, that is where Telarc and Sheffield have dropped the ball.
    Why are you pulling the Sheffield label into this? Who mentioned them as part of the level war? They don't record pop music, and nobody has found a single title of their with the same problem that Chris found on a SINGLE CD. Secondly a person would have to be living in a cave to believe that Telarc and Sheffield were the only two companies turning out excellent recordings. What about Nimbus, Decca, Mobile Fidelity, London,Chesky, and so many others? What about the SACD that Telarc(or any other record company has produced. Since you don't even own a player, you don't know the quality of their recording in that format.




    Quote:

    They built their reputation on supposedly giving consumers the best recordings possible. I mean, do they get a brass ring for making the hottest recording levels? What is the point? If they wanted to compete, it seems the best sound quality would win.
    If you check out Telarc's earlier(and even newly) CLASSICAL(their specialty) offerings on CD, you will find that the quality of their recordings are exemplary. If you listen to ALL of Telarcs SACD recordings as I have, you wouldn't doubt one bit the fact that they turn out some of the most well recorded product out there.

    Sorry, but brass rings do not keep record companies in business. Just like with every other business, either you adopt to the market trends, or you go out of business. This is business 101. Right now SOME jazz, and most of all pop has the levels up to increase the impact of its broadcast over the air waves. This is what the artists want, the producers want, and ultimately what the record companies are asking for as a result.

    If the average consumer went for quality only, there would be no 16/44.1khz redbook CD's(24/96khz multichannel sounds better). There would be no vinyl records(24/96khz multichannel sounds better) no Dolby Digital(it doesn't sound as good as CD, and 24/96khz Dts sounds better) no VHS(DVD looks better) no laserdisc(DVD looks better) and for that matter no DVD(Film and D-VHS both look better). Since all that has been mentioned has been around, it just goes to show that quality has not been much of a driving force for the average cosumers. Convience and value has always topped the list over sound quality. To add insult to injury, most would prefer downloadable MP3 over CD.(this is according to a study done by RIAA)


    Quote:

    That's pure crap Bishop unloaded about competing.
    What experience or education do you have that brings you to this conclusion. How many CD's, soundtracks etc have you mixed and mastered? Have you ever produced? Do you run a record company? Have you ever done a mix destined for broadcast?

    Quote:

    Does anyone know what the advantage of a hot recording is?
    What will I hear in comparison to a recording with lower levels?
    The advantage of hot recording and using compression is that the music no matter what the volume, will stay above above the noise floor of the radio medium. Radio tends to have a rather high noise floor, and lower levels(and no use of compression) tends to make softer mixes sound murky, and indistinct as it get's buried in the noise.


    Quote:

    I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.
    If this is true, then I would not have to explain so much to you. This is information that is known by every working engineer in the business.

    Quote:

    I can't really believe the hot levels are for the broadcast industry because there are probably tons of recordings that were made before the big high level push, does that mean they don't get played anymore?
    No, they are still played. They however do not have as much punch and power when played back over the air as the ones that are mastered at a higher level.




    Quote:

    What if broadcasters start playing SACD, does that mean SACD sound will be sacraficed on the same alter as CD?
    Since this is not common practice, who knows. I highly doubt that radio stations will play SACD. Its broader frequency response, and dynamic range could be very upsetting to studio electronics.


    Quote:

    Many larger market stations don't even play CD anymore, it's all automated on computer.
    How do you think it gets on those computer? A genie? Radio stations just don't go out and buy computers loaded full of top ten hits you know. The use CD's to download onto computers.

    Quote:

    And again Telarc and simular high end recording companies don't exactly have top 100 artists, so Bishop's excuse don't fly.
    I think Michael Bishop is a little smarter and more experienced at this than you are, so you are in no position to decide what flies, and what does not. If any of his product is destined for radio(and the particular example that Chris points out is) then it must compete with other product destined for radio.

    Quote:

    Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.
    I don't know about Diana Krall, but I do know about Norah Jones "Come away with me", Yes the dynamics are somewhat restricted, and the overall level is higher than some of my older CD's. Once again, your feeble attempts at making this a solo practice of Telarcs is futile. If you read any of the previous posts, there is a link that talk about this in detail.

    Mr Peabody, for a person who claims to have done thousands of recordings, you know amazing little about how the industry operates. It amazes me that in your thousands of mixes that you have never done one destined for a radio station, and have no knowledge of how to master for radio broadcast. Most of what I have posted here is common knowledge amoung mixers, and mastering professionals. The practice of recording "hot" for radio broadcast has been around for years now, discussed to death amoung engineers, and frowned upon by us who enjoy quality over quantity. It surprises me somewhat to know that you have such extensive recording experience, and no knowledge of this practice. Where have YOU been all of these years?
  • 06-08-2004, 05:40 PM
    gonefishin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.



    Hi Mr Peabody :)


    I have noticed extremely high recording levels on various CD's. The Norah Jones Album (aheem...cd) in particular. Not only is the main body of music recorded "louder" but the dynamic range of the recorded is p!ss poor too.
    It's a shame that the recording industry is going toward recording everything sooo hot. CD format is actually capable of producing some pretty nice sound...but if you record the music so dang hot...your getting rid of one of the advantages right off the bat. What a shame!


    ok...I'll stop now...but it is a darn shame :mad:
  • 06-09-2004, 02:39 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality?

    Aren't you being just a little dramatic here. The format is in its infancy, and you already have it following the same path as the CD. Do the words drama king mean anything here?


    Quote:

    I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format?
    I cannot believe that you have done thousands of recordings and cannot answer this question for yourself. I think that Telarc does turn out recordings that sound very good indeed. The raised levels does not change that. Raising the level does not always compromise sound quality, and it is disengenous for you to implicate that in an indirect way.


    Quote:

    Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised
    Nastygrams are childish, ineffective, and serve no purpose. From what I have gathered from your postings, you do not know much about the industry, so that makes you ill qualified to decide if Michael's excuse is lame or not. You don't own a SACD player, so you cannot judge the quality of the higher resolution format in comparison to the CD platform. Based on this, it seems that your complaining about all of this is rather lame itself. Before Chris even bought the topic up, you didn't even know the practice existed!, Now all of a sudden CD's are vile, compromised products, and you are just totally outraged, everyone in the music industry is a evil demon(with Telarc and Sheffield being baal himself) and you are not going to support the high resolution formats. This is good.....
  • 06-09-2004, 06:42 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Young Terrence, you assume too much.
    I said, I have done recordings, I did not say I was an engineer or producer.
    I certainly do not have a SACD player, nor does the person who started this thread. This discussion was not about a comparison of the 2 formats.
    You try so hard to make yourself sound like you know something, that you, my man, appear to be lame. I would like to know how you have time to do all your recording and engineering when you claim on the HT forum that you are a professional HT installer. If you are "in the industry" then apparently, you are better off the less we know and Chris's thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
  • 06-10-2004, 11:59 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I said, I have done recordings, I did not say I was an engineer or producer.
    I certainly do not have a SACD player, nor does the person who started this thread. This discussion was not about a comparison of the 2 formats.
    You try so hard to make yourself sound like you know something, that you, my man, appear to be lame. I would like to know how you have time to do all your recording and engineering when you claim on the HT forum that you are a professional HT installer. If you are "in the industry" then apparently, you are better off the less we know and Chris's thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.


    I really enjoy turning on the lights and seeing roaches scurry for cover. One of the most disengenous things a person can do is to make a statement just ambiguous enough so one could seem knowledgeable, but not specific enough to be pinned down. As illustrated by this comment.

    Quote:

    I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.
    Now one could easily conclude that they are talking to a recording engineer from this statement. But alas, this statement comes in the next post.

    Quote:

    I said, I have done recordings, I did not say I was an engineer or producer.
    What does the words "I have done recordings" mean in this statement. Does it mean 1. You were the musician who was being recorded?
    2. You were pretending to be a microphone stand and holding a microphone?
    3. You were watching the FOH mixer record a performance?
    4. You were trying to appear like you know what recording is all about?

    So Mr peabody, what is it for you? I would suspect #4

    Another common characteristic of one who has jumped into the water, and realizes that he cannot really swim(in other words they try and interject into a topic for which they know nothing about) is they begin to steer away from the core issue, and throw personal insults as illustrated by this comment;

    Quote:

    You try so hard to make yourself sound like you know something, that you, my man, appear to be lame.
    First, I do not have to try hard at all to make myself sound like I know something. The proof is in the pudding. You may verify anything that I have said here on the internet. Either you know the information, or you don't. It appears that you don't so you want to try and drag me with you. VERY bad form old chap, this makes you look a little foolish. And the name calling, infantile.

    Quote:

    I would like to know how you have time to do all your recording and engineering when you claim on the HT forum that you are a professional HT installer.
    Well let's see, there are 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week. Ahh there is plenty of time.
    You mean a person cannot do BOTH? Is it againist the law to work for myself?
    This is a rather stupid question that has no relationship with the topic at hand, but I'll answer it anyway. Since I work for myself, I set my own schedule. A recording project can last anywhere from 1 week, to six months. A installation may take 4-6 weeks(or longer depending on the complexity). I work with an interior design person in designing a interior for the theater, then with the architech who makes the blueprints. I hand the blueprints over to the contractor, and if I am doing a recording project I go to work on that. This is called multitasking(since you asked this silly question, you obviously don't know about this yet). I'll bounce back and forth between these projects until they are both finish. If I am doing one OR the other, then the answer is simple.

    Quote:

    If you are "in the industry" then apparently, you are better off the less we know and Chris's thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
    Another personal insult. Bah! If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have to result to this. How much or how little you know about this industry is up to you. If you choose to know less(and I do not know how that is possible with you, you know less than nothing now) that is your business and has no effect on me. Its seems to me that if you knew more about the industry, you would not be here wining like a baby about something that has been going on for years. So If I am better off the less you know, then I am in damn good shape. You don't know very much now.
  • 06-11-2004, 10:06 AM
    Mr Peabody
    Terry, might I call you Terry, I feel with your insight we know each other so well now. Anyway Terry, I believe upon your review of all previous posts you will realize that it was you that started hurling insults. I try to refrain from reciprecating but you caught me in a bad mood. I think you should look into the mirror because you described yourself so well in your last post. I have to admit I do doubt your knowledge because you evade direct questions in lieu of posting insults and degrading remarks. The only knowledge I need in order to comment on Chris's post is what he said in his first post. Please re-assess here, I never claimed to know jack about the recording industry, that is you that makes out to be Mr. Expert. My lack of knowledge of the recording industry is why I found Chris's post so disturbing.

    For example, I know for a fact that some radio stations, if not all, in my market have most of their music library on computer. I really don't know how they got on computer. But you didn't enlighten us any, you just asked a question in your normal demeaning fashion. Maybe they download MP3 or some other music file like DJ's do. There are many on line services that provide this now. It would be time consuming for a station to sit and record all their music direct from CD and set back converting to the computing system by quite some time but maybe they do it that way. Why don't you tell me how so we all know for sure.

    As you look back through the posts if you strip away all your snide remarks, insults and dancing around the issue, I find you really don't have much of substance to say. As I have admitted not knowing much about the record industry and reviewing the posts, you, the professed expert, haven't learned me anything. So I believe that it is you who are the cock-a-roach here. I'm sorry for the insect description of you but I guess maybe I did learn something from you.

    I am from the Show Me state and done my time on the farm, so I can spot BS when I see it. So if I may quote from John Baultry, "Don't try to lay no Boodgie Woodgie on the King of Rock & Roll".
  • 06-11-2004, 11:25 AM
    gonefishin
    Quote:

    I am from the Show Me state and done my time on the farm, so I can spot BS when I see it.

    dang Mr. Peabody...I ain't from some state that shows me anything ( :rolleyes: well, anything but higher taxes)

    ...but I know BS when I read it too ;)


    now please beer with me a bit.



    I've gone back and read the discussion and tho Terrance may have gotten fed up a bit...your post are not as innocent as you suggest in the immediate post above. (however, this is a common tactic when arguing...not a very effective one...but common)

    Rather than take the argumentative stance that you seem to be taking...why not simply ask (or learn) more about the subject your discussing. If I remember right...Terrance has a bit of experience in the recording industry (tho I'm not sure how much)...How about asking him or others (reading some books or visiting recording forums) so you may learn what goes into a recording...and what compromises are sometimes made (and why).

    This is a dang good subject, but it looks like you would rather (blindly) accuse some recording companies of inexcusably sub-standard merchandise, than actual have a discussion about the actual problem (If it looks like I'm making some assumptions here...it's because I am)


    Like you...I'm not in the recording industry either. But I have noticed that some recordings (Norah Jones among others) is recorded much louder than compared to what I view as a good (or decent) recording. Recording at higher levels doesn't always mean the recording is going to sound like sh!t. You can still make a nice sounding album recording at levels which are too high...but I've noticed that these albums have a limited dynamic range. If this is important or not to you...I don't know...but it is to me.


    Terrence...it does seem a shame when record labels who have always brought us quality recording starts participating in this "loudness game", but do you see this as something that may just be a phase? Perhaps something we may just need to weather the storm.

    Do you (or others) think that quality recording may become a thing of the past? I suppose it doesn't really matter who are why the record companies are producing sub-quality recordings...it only matters that they are (notice I didn't say sub-standard...because I do believe that the standard is already sub-quality)


    anyway...cool topic...thanks!

    dan
  • 06-11-2004, 04:00 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Terry, might I call you Terry, I feel with your insight we know each other so well now. Anyway Terry, I believe upon your review of all previous posts you will realize that it was you that started hurling insults.

    Nope, please call me Sir Terrence. Only my friends can call me Terry. I did review, and as was said already, you are not as innocent as you are trying to portray yourself. Why would I need to hurl insults, I know about recording practices, you are the one that does not.


    Quote:

    I try to refrain from reciprecating but you caught me in a bad mood.
    Perhaps it was that same mood that started you in the negative direction you chose to take.


    Quote:

    I think you should look into the mirror because you described yourself so well in your last post.
    Sorry Mr Peabody, this is a no spin zone. And you are trying to spin this like a top. Bad form once again old chap.

    Quote:

    I have to admit I do doubt your knowledge because you evade direct questions in lieu of posting insults and degrading remarks.
    Can't you read???? I answered every one of your questions. The problem is, you are so busy trying to argue back, you are not paying attention to the answers. Pehaps a re-read may(or may not) refresh your memory. You doubt MY knowledge, how could you? You are the one that had no idea this practice was even done. You are the one that doesn't know anything about the music BUSINESS. You are the one that had no idea why one records at hot levels. You are the one how open admitted you don't know jack about recording. So how could you doubt my knowledge. I think you are just saying this because your lack of knowledge made a fool of yourself. Do the words "trying to save face" mean anything to you?

    Quote:

    The only knowledge I need in order to comment on Chris's post is what he said in his first post.
    If that is all the knowledge that you think you need, you are in alot of trouble. If you just want to spout ignorant crap, then yes this is all the knowledge you need. If you want to speak intelligently on the subject, then you are going to need a little more information than what Chris provided.

    Quote:

    Please re-assess here, I never claimed to know jack about the recording industry, that is you that makes out to be Mr. Expert. My lack of knowledge of the recording industry is why I found Chris's post so disturbing.
    Considering I have been working in the record industry some twenty years, that makes me at least knowledgeable. You don't know jack, and yet you feel like you can doubt my knowledge. Wow, can anyone have more nuts than that!

    Quote:

    For example, I know for a fact that some radio stations, if not all, in my market have most of their music library on computer. I really don't know how they got on computer. But you didn't enlighten us any, you just asked a question in your normal demeaning fashion.
    Maybe because common sense(or is it?) would tell you that it was possibly loaded via CD's like most radio stations do. Didn't you read that in my first post, or where you so busy thinking up the next arguementive position to take instead of ingesting what was written. Normal demeaning fashion? So what you are telling me is that you have read 6 years of my posts, and think I have been demeaning in all of them? Right Mr. Peabody, and if these posts that you have presented here are normal for you, then the lights are definately out upstairs. Hate to sound cold, but I like to keep it real if you don't mind.

    Quote:

    Maybe they download MP3 or some other music file like DJ's do.
    I don't think so,my or my clients would not be asking me to do the things they do. Not likely as the quality if MP3 is pretty compromised.


    Quote:

    There are many on line services that provide this now. It would be time consuming for a station to sit and record all their music direct from CD and set back converting to the computing system by quite some time but maybe they do it that way. Why don't you tell me how so we all know for sure.
    It takes me all of 10 minutes to download a whole CD to my hard drive, why do you think that this is so time consuming? You seem so quick for a person who claims no knowledge to dismiss so many things. Since you so doubt my knowledge in this area, why bother telling you the answer to your question?

    Quote:

    As you look back through the posts if you strip away all your snide remarks, insults and dancing around the issue, I find you really don't have much of substance to say.
    By what vast personal knowledge could bring you to this conclusion. If you don't know anything about the industry, how do you know what is substance and what is not? My Peabody, you are unfortunately full of it, and you know it too.

    Quote:

    As I have admitted not knowing much about the record industry and reviewing the posts, you, the professed expert, haven't learned me anything.
    Then there are a only a couple of conclusions one could reach. Either you have a VERY limited capacity of understanding basic knowledge, you are too combative to learn anything from anyone, or you are just plain retarded. Which is it?

    Quote:

    So I believe that it is you who are the cock-a-roach here. I'm sorry for the insect description of you but I guess maybe I did learn something from you.
    More spin, you are consistant aren't you. And I agree, you are sorry.

    Quote:

    I am from the Show Me state and done my time on the farm, so I can spot BS when I see it.
    Now I know you are full of it. First you claim you have no knowledge of the music industry, now you say you can spot BS when you see it. How may I ask given your admitted lack of knowledge can you do this.. Well I can spot BS also, like when somebody claims to have done "thousands" of recordings, yet doesn't even know what the practice of recording hot is. Dude, you are totally exposed, and it is here in writing. No one teaches about the recording arts on a farm, so your time was in vain.

    Quote:

    So if I may quote from John Baultry, "Don't try to lay no Boodgie Woodgie on the King of Rock & Roll".
    Wow, is this the best that one from the show me state can muster up. OH BROTHER!!!! Give me a break. Boogie Woogie?? You must be from the old school, because nobody talks like that anymore. I guess this is how they speak on the "farm"?
  • 06-11-2004, 04:42 PM
    DMK
    If I may...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

    Wow, is this the best that one from the show me state can muster up. OH BROTHER!!!! Give me a break. Boogie Woogie?? You must be from the old school, because nobody talks like that anymore. I guess this is how they speak on the "farm"?

    Not "Boogie Woogie"... as Mr Peabody pointed out, it's "Boodgie Woodgie" with a soft rather than a hard G. But, Mr Peabody, it's Long John BALDRY. As the story goes, he was from England (actually, that's not a story - that's true! the STORY is...) and read the words "boogie woogie" and mispronounced them. It stuck. The quote is accurate and once graced a poster of a past president, although I've forgotten which one. Carter, I think.

    Sorry, nothing really to do with the topic at hand but what a voice Long John had! P.S I think they still speak like that "on the farm"... Parchman Farm, that is!

    I apologize for the intrusion... and now, back to the battle. Carry on, gents! :)
  • 06-11-2004, 10:08 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Terry, your not inscenuating we aren't friends are you? I'm hurt.

    I can't say I have read all your posts, nor would I want to read them, but every single one I have read, and there have been many, you are always condecending and you try to put yourself on some pedestal. You are full of hot air. I love the way you dissect each of my posts and try to twist my words, then want to pretend you are innocent. Like when you take what I said about not knowing about the recording industry and deliberately leave off the word "industry" to make it look like I was lieing about having done thousands of recordings. I have done thousands of recordings, the majority of which have been source to source. Even with that one has to set record levels and do some experimenting to find what level yields the best result.

    You are trying so hard to live up to "the Terrible" that you loose focus of the theme of the discussion. Your purpose is to try to make others look bad and tear them down in order to make yourself look good or to cover up the BS you spread. I have always found you extremely irratating and for a long while have been able to avoid us being on the same discussion. Your like that uncle everyone has but no one likes because whatever the discussion is you always done it too and better than everybody else. My fault is responding to you in the first place. It was you, who addressed me personally on this discussion. I said nothing to you until then. So you should save your tongue spanking or wagging for those who put up with it.

    I believe you could brush up on your reading comprehension yourself. The language you refer to me using, if you notice, that was a quote. Not that I would be ashamed of saying it myself. I can tell that reference went right over your head.

    If you are such a hot shot in the recording industry for 20 years, indulge me with some name dropping. Who have you recorded we may have heard of? Can we see your name on an album sleeve somewhere?

    When doing these elaborate sound installs where you use an architect an such, do you carry any lines of equipment or do you buy from a distributor? Whose equipment do you carry or prefer to use? I've designed a couple of systems when I was in the biz maybe we can find some common ground to discuss. I never had to use an architect. Mine were only systems for athletic clubs, schools and the like. C'mon Eddie, be a sport.
  • 06-11-2004, 10:31 PM
    WmAx
    Mr. Peabody and Sir Terrence The Terrible...
    Mr. Peabody and Sir Terrence The Terrible...

    Would it be possible to cease this 'fight', since it has deteriated into something(essentially a personal conflict, in my perspective) that has little to no relevance to the actual topic of the thread?

    Thank you.

    -Chris


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Terry, your not inscenuating we aren't friends are you? I'm hurt.

    I can't say I have read all your posts, nor would I want to read them, but every single one I have read, and there have been many, you are always condecending and you try to put yourself on some pedestal. You are full of hot air. I love the way you dissect each of my posts and try to twist my words, then want to pretend you are innocent. Like when you take what I said about not knowing about the recording industry and deliberately leave off the word "industry" to make it look like I was lieing about having done thousands of recordings. I have done thousands of recordings, the majority of which have been source to source. Even with that one has to set record levels and do some experimenting to find what level yields the best result.

    You are trying so hard to live up to "the Terrible" that you loose focus of the theme of the discussion. Your purpose is to try to make others look bad and tear them down in order to make yourself look good or to cover up the BS you spread. I have always found you extremely irratating and for a long while have been able to avoid us being on the same discussion. Your like that uncle everyone has but no one likes because whatever the discussion is you always done it too and better than everybody else. My fault is responding to you in the first place. It was you, who addressed me personally on this discussion. I said nothing to you until then. So you should save your tongue spanking or wagging for those who put up with it.

    I believe you could brush up on your reading comprehension yourself. The language you refer to me using, if you notice, that was a quote. Not that I would be ashamed of saying it myself. I can tell that reference went right over your head.

    If you are such a hot shot in the recording industry for 20 years, indulge me with some name dropping. Who have you recorded we may have heard of? Can we see your name on an album sleeve somewhere?

    When doing these elaborate sound installs where you use an architect an such, do you carry any lines of equipment or do you buy from a distributor? Whose equipment do you carry or prefer to use? I've designed a couple of systems when I was in the biz maybe we can find some common ground to discuss. I never had to use an architect. Mine were only systems for athletic clubs, schools and the like. C'mon Eddie, be a sport.

  • 06-11-2004, 10:48 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I have always heard him called Long John but when I finally put my hands on a copy of the album I surprised not to see Long on the cover. It just shows John Baldry. Is Long perhaps added on later albums?
  • 06-14-2004, 09:36 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Terry, your not inscenuating we aren't friends are you? I'm hurt.

    Well, since my friends KNOW what I do for a living, they wouldn't make the assumptions, or even attempt to question the replies that I give them regarding audio. You doubt makes us not friends, so your pain is self inflicted.

    Quote:

    I can't say I have read all your posts, nor would I want to read them, but every single one I have read, and there have been many, you are always condecending and you try to put yourself on some pedestal.
    When you know your stuff, people usually make this statement. Those who know me on this board(as opposed to those who THINK they know me) know this is not true. This is a true fall back statement and has been used by many people who think they know about audio, but the reality is the exact opposite. When someone corrects you, then you say that person is being condescending. So many have tried to spin this in this fashion that it is old, used up, and holds no validity.

    Quote:

    You are full of hot air.
    Another typical statement(isn't there anybody who is original around here??)

    Quote:

    I love the way you dissect each of my posts and try to twist my words, then want to pretend you are innocent.
    Your words are not twisted at all, and I never claimed I was innocent. That is your claim. This "I am innocent and you attacked" me stuff is completely disengenous, and it makes you sound weak. Buck up, and chin up old chap, this is VERY uncomely.

    Quote:

    Like when you take what I said about not knowing about the recording industry and deliberately leave off the word "industry" to make it look like I was lieing about having done thousands of recordings.
    You are lying. Anyone who has done "thousands" of recordings, should not be surprised, or outraged at the practice of recording hot, and using compression. This should be a yawner, as the practice has been going on for years now. The amount of "blather" you have spouted regarding this practice, and calling into question Michael Bishop response shows that you haven't the faintest idea about the process of recording and mastering audio for broadcast or general release. Not only is Michael answer correct, but that answer will be consistant from mastering engineer to mastering engineer. Some don't mind the practice because it is giving the clients what they ask for, and other hate the practice and trying and talk to client out of it.

    Quote:

    I have done thousands of recordings, the majority of which have been source to source. Even with that one has to set record levels and do some experimenting to find what level yields the best result.
    Recording levels, and mastering levels are VERY different. The complaint that Chris has is with the mastering levels, not the recording levels. Jeeze, you have done thousands of recordings, you should know this.

    Quote:

    You are trying so hard to live up to "the Terrible" that you loose focus of the theme of the discussion.
    Terrible, I love that.... Thanks Doc Greene for the name!! Well since you took this to the personal level, I think it was you that pulled this off the theme of the discussion.

    Quote:

    Your purpose is to try to make others look bad and tear them down in order to make yourself look good or to cover up the BS you spread.
    First of all, when non knowledgeable people challenge knowledgeable people, they tear themselves down. When they keep arguing, and changing the subject(spinning) it tears them down further. I don't tear people down there no need to(and its not my style), I get them to keep posting by stating facts(which are verifiable and I have provided links). The very fact that they continue to argue, and 99% of the time change the subject to hide their apparent lack of knowledge allows them to make a fool of themselves. Keep them talking, the more foolish they look, much like you are doing here. Don't blame me for you looking foolish in this subject. Blame yourself for having a online ego so big, that it won't allow you to shut up. Once again I have challenged you to verify what I have stated. If you don't do it, you should just shut up as you have no arguement.

    Quote:

    I have always found you extremely irratating and for a long while have been able to avoid us being on the same discussion.
    Very strange that you couldn't keep up that trend. It would have probably saved you from appearing so....well....dumb.

    Quote:

    Your like that uncle everyone has but no one likes because whatever the discussion is you always done it too and better than everybody else.
    Gee thanks. Well unlike yourself I don't talk about things I don't know about. You could stand to learn this lesson yourself.

    Quote:

    My fault is responding to you in the first place.
    No, that was not your fault. Your fault is trying to respond to a topic that you have no knowledge of. Your fault was for lying and saying that you have done thousands of recordings, but yet do not a common practice that is mention in Chris intial post. Responding to me is not a fault in and of itself.

    Quote:

    It was you, who addressed me personally on this discussion. I said nothing to you until then. So you should save your tongue spanking or wagging for those who put up with it.
    Actually I was addressing your non factual(and silly sounding rant, but if you want to make that personal, there's not much I can do about it. You had to have said something, or I would not have had anything to respond to. Isn't that much like common sense?

    Quote:

    I believe you could brush up on your reading comprehension yourself. The language you refer to me using, if you notice, that was a quote. Not that I would be ashamed of saying it myself. I can tell that reference went right over your head.
    Well since I am not a farm type dude, then its understandable that such "colorful" language would go over my head. I noticed it was a quote when I saw it, but I was somewhat amused that someone would actually use that in the 21st century.

    Quote:

    If you are such a hot shot in the recording industry for 20 years, indulge me with some name dropping. Who have you recorded we may have heard of? Can we see your name on an album sleeve somewhere?
    This has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. This is just ANOTHER attempt to spin away from the issue, and personalize it. I am not now, or ever going to take this stupid kind of bait. Did you notice I never one time ask for your name, or the titles of the thousands(eh) of recordings that you have made? It's irrelevant, and Stevie Wonder could see that!

    Quote:

    When doing these elaborate sound installs where you use an architect an such, do you carry any lines of equipment or do you buy from a distributor? Whose equipment do you carry or prefer to use? I've designed a couple of systems when I was in the biz maybe we can find some common ground to discuss. I never had to use an architect. Mine were only systems for athletic clubs, schools and the like. C'mon Eddie, be a sport.

    Who is Eddie may I ask? I haven't been a "sport" since I was 9 y/o. I wouldn't mind at all discussing all of this information with you. But this thread is not the place. Pehaps you could start a thread in the hometheater section, and I'll be glad to participate. This thread concerns hot mastering levels, and out of respect for Chris, we should stay on topic as we have already venture well out of it as it is.
  • 06-14-2004, 01:09 PM
    kingdaddykeith
    "You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD".

    Wish I knew how to do quots..


    Thatís what I got out of it, and I agree to a cretin extent. Although I might be wrong, It has been my understanding that limiting has been going on from the vinyl days, even LP's were compressed because they were used as masters to cut cassette and 8-track tapes from, and they had playback range issues. Also just like recording you own cassette, you want to get as close to saturation as possible, if you donít or you have a very dynamic source, then the recording level is so low that an unacceptable noise floor is introduced, and on mid-fi playback gear this is annoyingly noticeable. At least thatís my take on those two subjects.

    Very interesting reply from Telarc though.
  • 06-14-2004, 01:51 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kingdaddykeith
    "You must have misunderstood the original post. the issue is not that CD has insufficient dynamic range whereas SACD does not. The issue is that the CD recording is degraded below the CD specs, distorted, clipped on purpose, not because of the limits of CD".

    Wish I knew how to do quots..


    Thatís what I got out of it, and I agree to a cretin extent. Although I might be wrong, It has been my understanding that limiting has been going on from the vinyl days, even LP's were compressed because they were used as masters to cut cassette and 8-track tapes from, and they had playback range issues. Also just like recording you own cassette, you want to get as close to saturation as possible, if you donít or you have a very dynamic source, then the recording level is so low that an unacceptable noise floor is introduced, and on mid-fi playback gear this is annoyingly noticeable. At least thatís my take on those two subjects.

    Very interesting reply from Telarc though.

    Now can someone, anyone explain to me why this man can get it(who makes no claims to be an audio engineer), but the one who has done thousands of recording can't. I guess this is one of lifes mysteries.
  • 06-14-2004, 05:27 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I spoke with the Programming Asst. of our album rock station here and he says when they went to computer they subscribed to a programming service called Scott's Service, as I suggested, and even when they add new songs they don't just record from CD, as Terrence tried to tell us, they use a ripping program to save time. This is a 100,000 watt major market station www.kshe95.com.

    Uh, Terry, mastering levels aren't for recording? Don't have anything to do with recording? Interesting.
  • 06-14-2004, 05:45 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Correction
    The computer service I referred to is Scott's Studios. When a station subscribes they receive a library for their particular format. Now I know why variety in radio has gone down the toilet. Radio ain't what it used to be. I wonder what the Wolfman would say. What if we could tell the computer store what genre we like and music would come on our home computer like Windows. Actually, I was in Best Buy and they were trying to sign people up for a computer service that allowed you access to 30,000 albums for a monthly fee. I also notice that receivers are now coming with computer inputs. I saw the new Onkyo's have some type of computer interface. I guess to somehow remotely tie this back into the theme, are those of us who care about quality a very small majority? And when push comes to shove, will convenience win over sound quality? And why would a recording studio worry about compression when a song will be compressed to the max to be stored on a radio station computer anyway?
  • 06-14-2004, 07:16 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I spoke with the Programming Asst. of our album rock station here and he says when they went to computer they subscribed to a programming service called Scott's Service, as I suggested, and even when they add new songs they don't just record from CD, as Terrence tried to tell us, they use a ripping program to save time. This is a 100,000 watt major market station www.kshe95.com.

    Uh, Terry, mastering levels aren't for recording? Don't have anything to do with recording? Interesting.


    Mr. Peabody, you record your audio, get levels correct, finalize the mix, and send it to a mastering engineer for final tweaking. That is the process. You don't just record, mix, and send it out for duplication and only idiots believe that. The recording levels(or raw mix) may have a different level than the final mastered mix. Read this article:

    http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=31/

    And no, mastering levels are not for recording, its a completely different process. Damn, did you say you have recorded before, and you have no idea of the process. Keep talking, this picture is becoming more clear for everyone to see. Just keep talking

    Mr Peabody, what do you think they ripped them from? An air sandwich. You asked one station out of 10,000, get this one answer, and you think you have made a point? You are only fooling yourself sir. And the service, where do you think they get their music from? Carrier pegion? No, a stork drops it right into the service, optimized, and ready to go. RIGHT!!! If you think I am BS'ing read these threads.

    http://www.berkleemusic.com/discuss/...forum_id=13331

    http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/...s/dynamics.htm

    http://www.broadcastpapers.com/radio...tHappens01.htm

    http://www.proaudiorx.com/dynamicrange.htm

    No matter what the local radio station uses, the originating source was the CD, or there would not be a loudness war. I cannot believe that you cannot see the logic of this, well maybe I can.
  • 06-14-2004, 07:24 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    The computer service I referred to is Scott's Studios. When a station subscribes they receive a library for their particular format. Now I know why variety in radio has gone down the toilet. Radio ain't what it used to be. I wonder what the Wolfman would say. What if we could tell the computer store what genre we like and music would come on our home computer like Windows. Actually, I was in Best Buy and they were trying to sign people up for a computer service that allowed you access to 30,000 albums for a monthly fee. I also notice that receivers are now coming with computer inputs. I saw the new Onkyo's have some type of computer interface. I guess to somehow remotely tie this back into the theme, are those of us who care about quality a very small majority? And when push comes to shove, will convenience win over sound quality? And why would a recording studio worry about compression when a song will be compressed to the max to be stored on a radio station computer anyway?

    Were does Scott studio get their music from? How is it delivered? How do they build their libraries?

    The answer is they come from CD's. These CD's are ripped, compiled by genre by places like Scotts Studio(so the radio station does not have to do it) and have their services purchased by radio station. In the final analysis, the originating carrier of the music was the CD.

    So the bottom line is that you still do not know what you are speaking of, however you are still talking and continuing to make a fool of yourself.

    Geeze Mr. Peabody, you are making this too easy. Just keep posting, your ignorance of this subject matter becomes more revealing with every post. I certainly hope the board is reading this.
  • 06-14-2004, 08:09 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Well, Terry, there really aren't too many "local" radio stations anymore. They are all being sucked up by multi-media corporations. So try as you will, K-SHE is a substantially large market station and owned by a corporation who owns most of the stations in St. Louis and others across the U.S. Also, Scott's wouldn't be in business very long if stations weren't using them.

    Whether it's the original recording, remastering or duplicating if the level goes to high, damage is done.
  • 06-15-2004, 11:01 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Well, Terry, there really aren't too many "local" radio stations anymore. They are all being sucked up by multi-media corporations. So try as you will, K-SHE is a substantially large market station and owned by a corporation who owns most of the stations in St. Louis and others across the U.S. Also, Scott's wouldn't be in business very long if stations weren't using them.

    Whether it's the original recording, remastering or duplicating if the level goes to high, damage is done.

    It doesn't make any difference whether the station is owned by a person, or a corporation, it doesn't matter if the station rips the music themselves, or subscribes to a service, they get their media via the CD. So try as YOU WILL to deny that, but I gave you evidence that says as much.

    As you run out of ways to scurry around the issue, it appears that you have less and less to say. So you are now running to micro information, micro detail, or skirting some issues all together.

    High levels DO NOT necessarily mean there is damage. Excessively loud levels where peak transients go over 0db reference are damaging. A good mastering engineer will analyze a complete song, determine the loudest peak, and reduce the overall level so that the loudest peak registers just under 0db reference. This is an especially common practice with material that is not very dynamic.

    It's really not good to make blanket statements like"once the level goes up, the damage is done". It takes a little more than high levels to damage the signal.
  • 06-15-2004, 08:30 PM
    mtrycraft
    You have patience of job? Correcting all his errors Great job.
  • 06-21-2004, 05:58 PM
    Steve1000
    This is my first post here. I've been lurking and like it here a lot. However, as far as the technical expertise displayed by many of the regulars, I am way over my head.

    I would like to see an analysis of the merits of the question posed below (by the original poster in this thread). I'm not really competent to answer. But my belief is this -- that for two-channel music, SACD has no audible advantage over CD, given that the mastering for both media is given proper attention and the playback equipment is maybe in the solid-performing $150 range or better.

    Am I right? Am I wrong? WHY?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

    The point of this post is to question if the proclomations of people claiming SACD is audibly superior to CD format, even when both are used in 2 channel mode, have any validitiy.

    Let's consider the following points:

    (1) I can not find a scientific research project demonstrating audibly benefits to humans of a wider bandwidth then CD offers.

    (2) I can not find definitive research of SACD vs CD releases, to find alternative explanations.

    (3) I can not find reason for larger then 16 bit wordlength for audio playback, especially when properly dithered, which can effectively remove the quantitazation noise and allow the theoretical limit of CD of 96dB to be approached and/or met.

    -Chris

  • 06-21-2004, 07:13 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Steve1000
    This is my first post here. I've been lurking and like it here a lot. However, as far as the technical expertise displayed by many of the regulars, I am way over my head.

    I would like to see an analysis of the merits of the question posed below (by the original poster in this thread). I'm not really competent to answer. But my belief is this -- that for two-channel music, SACD has no audible advantage over CD, given that the mastering for both media is given proper attention and the playback equipment is maybe in the solid-performing $150 range or better.

    Am I right? Am I wrong? WHY?

    You're welcome to believe whatever you want. If you have a belief, then test it by doing your own comparisons. If you level match it, and apply some kind of bias control, then you'll have your own answer.

    The thing is that there are plenty of CDs still sitting around music store bins that were not done correctly in the first place. Your assumption regarding proper mastering for both media is a huge leap of faith. My only exposure thus far to high res digital audio is classic records' 96/24 audio discs, which are playable through any DVD player. The quality of the playback through those discs is a clear cut improvement over the CD versions, including "remastered" versions. Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.
  • 06-21-2004, 08:07 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

    Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

    -Chris
  • 06-22-2004, 04:49 AM
    Steve1000
    I'm certianly not going to buy into "hi-res" audio if it is inherently no better for two-channel music than CD "low-res" [??] audio. I won't buy into the new format simply because they are paying better attention to the mastering with the new format. A LOT of people join me in this sentiment. If this is what the recording companies are doing, "hi-res" is toast, IMHO.

    I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of these things. As I understand it, CDs are sampled at 44.1 khz, so that the frequency response maxes out at about 22 khz, which is well in excess of the hearing of the vast majority of the human population, though dogs may be able to appreciate it.

    I'm not going to be running double-blind of ABX tests between SACD and CD disks listening for audible consequences of 23 khz info in this lifetime. Life's too short, I'm not going to spend my money on such silliness if there's no support for it in theory, and I have too little expertise. If I am persuaded that CDs should have the same two-channel audio quailty as SACDs, DVD audio, etc., I'm not gonna bite for the "high-res" stuff, as a matter of principle. That' why I'm asking.

    The vast majority of households, including mine, have no interest whatsoever in anything more than highly euphonic two-channel sound or in trying to hear what little information is conveyed above 22 khz.

    I am quite willing to alter my views, but not based on the thin reed of purely subjective assertions.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    You're welcome to believe whatever you want. If you have a belief, then test it by doing your own comparisons. If you level match it, and apply some kind of bias control, then you'll have your own answer.

    The thing is that there are plenty of CDs still sitting around music store bins that were not done correctly in the first place. Your assumption regarding proper mastering for both media is a huge leap of faith. My only exposure thus far to high res digital audio is classic records' 96/24 audio discs, which are playable through any DVD player. The quality of the playback through those discs is a clear cut improvement over the CD versions, including "remastered" versions. Whether or not it's generalizable to SACD or DVD-A can only be answered when I get around to getting a universal player. But, based on my own sample, I certainly would not rule out higher resolution as a causal effect for the improveed sound quality that I heard.

  • 06-22-2004, 10:10 AM
    kingdaddykeith
    It's all in the mix and master not the DSD stream..
    I did a test with my TA-E/TA-P9KES combo a few years back between the SACDís DSD (untouched analog) version against the same layer down-mixed to 48/16 PCM. This particular combo allowed for easy level matching (2 separate volume controls) and lightning fast switching since I wasnít changing layers, I was just switching in or out the TA-E pre/processor (Bypass mode). My results using a SACD 2-ch recording was that there was absolutely no audible difference in my setup with my ears, I wanted to hear a difference, but I just couldnít, and the switching could be done so that I could not tell which version I was listening to.

    This test which I have posted about over at Audio Asylum Hi-Rez forum made a lot of people very angry over there, WmAx can attest to that, I believe he posted one of the few level headed responses.

    However, there is something about the technology that should give better dynamic range and allow for higher peaks and less compression if done properly, so I believe that there is some hope for this or similar recordings. So far with my collection of about 15 SACDís I am of the opinion that the best thing, or maybe the only thing that makes SACD sound any better is the re-mastered recording which is usually better then the older Redbook version. In addition, the Multi-Track recording are IMO much better then the 2 ch, so there is some good from these new Hi-Rez formats, but like all formats it is very dependant on the mix and mastering.

    In truth I only like about 1 in 3 of my SACDís, the rest are either the same or worse then their original masters, but some are just outstanding, like Goodbye Yellow brick Road, Toys in the Attic and Avalon. All the 2-ch mixes Iíve heard so far are terrible, very shrill on the top end, and with no ability to adjust the tone or equalize, I just canít stand to listen more then a few minutes, which is perfect for demo only.
  • 06-22-2004, 11:14 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

    -Chris

    Chris,

    You seemed VERY locked in to bandwith as a higher sampling rate benefit. That is not a higher sampling rates true benefit. The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal.

    The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

    http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408

    Also read what Bob Stuart of Meridan Audio says about higher sampling rates.

    http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

    IMO, and already documented, there is absolutely no reason to record(or any need for)at 192khz sampling rate. Some very odd things happen to the bass response at that sample rate. Bass appears thin and out of time to these ears, and have been noted and documented. Read this

    http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/papers/effects.pdf

    So while the higher bandwith is an argueable point, getting more samples really isn't amoung the engineering community. Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusive. So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out.
  • 06-22-2004, 11:56 AM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal.
    All undeniably true if you remove the word audible from the end of this statement. You state this as if it's proven fact, and I am not aware of any research coming to this conclusion as far as audibility is concerned.

    Quote:

    The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

    http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408
    Certainly it improves accuracy. Audibly with normal music playback? I don't see subtantial evidence of this.

    Quote:

    Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusive
    That is the issue So far, the respected controlled tests/references on this subject have not been able to achieve a positive result.

    Quote:

    So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out
    I did not state the contrary. I stated exactly this sediment, but I also stated that it is not logical to attribute the things 'credited' to hi-rez playback since their is no strong evidence that suggests that this should be the case. Until a peer-reviewed, scrutinized, valid audiblity test has been performed that achieves positive statistical signficance, then it can not be accepted as fact.

    -Chris
  • 06-22-2004, 12:13 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    Transmission of a bandwidth not proven to be audible in a controlled test should not be ruled out as a casual effect for the improved sound quality that you heard? Perhaps, I don't like to 'absolutely' rule anything 'out'. However, I don't see it as logical to presume that a larger bandwidth, in itself, is enhancing the audible data appreciably. Failure to achieve positive results in controlled tests does not lend support to the idea.

    -Chris

    How's it not logical? I'm basically pointing out a variable that's not accounted for. I don't have the mechanisms or access to source material to prove that any other factor is a more valid causal link than another, and neither do you. I know that the bandwidth is one of the variables, so therefore it has to remain on the table as potential causal factor until it is demonstrated to me that some other variable is more responsible for what I observed.

    You cite the need for controlled tests. Fine. Bring over the original master tapes and we can set the blind controlled listenings anywhere you want. If the CD, 96/24 disc, and original master are all transparent to one another under those conditions, then we have the answer. Otherwise, you are making a conclusion in the absence of proof as well by trying to rule out the bandwidth as a causal factor without knowing anything else about the source material.
  • 06-22-2004, 12:13 PM
    Monstrous Mike
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

    http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408

    Ok, I read that article and I have extracted the following quote:

    <i>"It’s been determined that time delay differences of 15 microseconds between left and right ears are easily discernible by nearly anyone. That’s less than the time difference between two samples at 48kHz (about 20 microseconds). Using a single pulse, one microsecond in length as a source, some listeners can perceive time delay differences of as little as five microseconds between left and right. It is therefore, indicated that, in order to provide a system with exact accuracy concerning imaging and positioning, the individual samples should be less than five microseconds apart. At 96kHz (a popularly preferred sample rate) there is a 10.417-microsecond space between samples. At 192kHz sample rate there is a 5.208-microsecond space between samples. This reasoning suggests that a sample rate of 192kHz is probably a good choice. As processors increase in speed and efficiency and as storage capacity expands high sample rates, long word length will become an insignificant concern and we’ll be able to focus on the next audio catastrophe. </i>

    I'm having some trouble understanding the above. The author is talking about time delay differences between the left and right ear and this might refer to sound coming from the left and right speakers which left the speaker a different times or sound coming from one speaker but the listener's ears are not the same distance (i.e. head turned) from that speaker. I believe this allows the listener to determine the direction the sound is coming from.

    However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?
  • 06-22-2004, 01:55 PM
    WmAx
    [QUOTE]
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Ok, I read that article and I have extracted the following quote:

    "Itís been determined that time delay differences of 15 microseconds between left and right ears are easily discernible by nearly anyone. Thatís less than the time difference between two samples at 48kHz (about 20 microseconds). Using a single pulse, one microsecond in length as a source, some listeners can perceive time delay differences of as little as five microseconds between left and right. It is therefore, indicated that, in order to provide a system with exact accuracy concerning imaging and positioning, the individual samples should be less than five microseconds apart. At 96kHz (a popularly preferred sample rate) there is a 10.417-microsecond space between samples. At 192kHz sample rate there is a 5.208-microsecond space between samples.

    I'm having some trouble understanding the above. The author is talking about time delay differences between the left and right ear and this might refer to sound coming from the left and right speakers which left the speaker a different times or sound coming from one speaker but the listener's ears are not the same distance (i.e. head turned) from that speaker. I believe this allows the listener to determine the direction the sound is coming from.

    This sounds like reference to Nordmark research(1.5us) and another research study. These studies found that humans can detect very slight time differences between channels under special conditinos. These conditinos were (5us) impulses and (1.5us) assymetricaly jittered pulses between two channels. These have not shown to be relevant to music that I am aware. As far as general bandwidth, in testing, humans are more sensitive to test tones in special test signals as opposed to music, also. The same goes for audibility of phase, polarity, distortions,e tc. The relevance to music playback is not clear.

    Quote:

    However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?
    Sampling frequency(bandwidth) dictates the precison of sampling an amplitude in a given space of time. While in a simple analysis, the bandwidth of 20kHz is adequte to adress raw bandwidth sensitivy, in order to replicate the test tone circumstance times suggested(5us, etc.), a far higher bandwidth would be requrined in order to record/playback. For example, if y ou have an acoustic event that contains only audible data(<20kHz), this still does not account for the potential tiny time dealy differences between channels(ears) that will occur since each ear is a discrete sensor essentially. Apparently, the interchannel time sensitivity of human ears is far higher then the raw bandwidth detectability. For a simplistic model, imagine 2 microphones(let's pretend it has a 200khz bandwidth for this discussion) imagine a sound source, of the same spectral content that is within 20khz bandwidth, one mike is placed 2mm farther away then the other. Obviously, it woudl require a 170kHz bandwidth to accurately record and play back this difference betweeen the two sources. Your ears apparently have this type of effect. Just remember that this been demonstrated to be readily audible with special test tones, not music.

    -Chris
  • 06-22-2004, 02:14 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    I don't have the mechanisms or access to source material to prove that any other factor is a more valid causal link than another, and neither do you. I know that the bandwidth is one of the variables, so therefore it has to remain on the table as potential causal factor until it is demonstrated to me that some other variable is more responsible for what I observed.
    It has not been demonstrated to be important. Their have been careful studies to attempt to confirm, but none that stood up to scrutiny have demonstrated positive results.

    Which Bandwidth Is Necesarry for Optimal Sound Transmission?
    G. Plenge, H. Jakubowski, P. Schone, JAES, 1978

    Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components
    JAES, Preprint 5876, Convention 115, 2003
    Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando

    Quote:

    Otherwise, you are making a conclusion in the absence of proof as well by trying to rule out the bandwidth as a causal factor without knowing anything else about the source material.
    Read the above papers.

    As far as conclusion without proof? No. I CAN NOT conclude that your claim has any signfigance. Data does not suggest this conclusion. You would have me assume things are true before such has been proven?

    -Chris