Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 426
  1. #51
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176

    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.

  2. #52
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.

    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.

    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;

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  3. #53
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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".

  4. #54
    Forum Regular gonefishin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Joliet, Ill.
    Posts
    343
    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 ( 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
    __________________
    I found the spoon
    __________________


    enjoy the music!

  5. #55
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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"?
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  6. #56
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    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!

  7. #57
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  8. #58
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236

    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.

  9. #59
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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?

  10. #60
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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!

    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.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 06-14-2004 at 02:15 PM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  11. #61
    Forum Regular kingdaddykeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    72
    "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.

  12. #62
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  13. #63
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  14. #64
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176

    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?

  15. #65
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 06-14-2004 at 07:39 PM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  16. #66
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  17. #67
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  18. #68
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  19. #69
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    You have patience of job? Correcting all his errors Great job.
    mtrycrafts

  20. #70
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    16
    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

  21. #71
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    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.

  22. #72
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    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

  23. #73
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    16
    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.
    Last edited by Steve1000; 06-22-2004 at 06:43 AM.

  24. #74
    Forum Regular kingdaddykeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    72

    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.

  25. #75
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    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.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 06-22-2004 at 11:42 AM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Simple SACD question!
    By N. Abstentia in forum General Audio
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 03:10 PM
  2. SACD 2 Channel Output - I'm Confused...
    By Sammy EX in forum General Audio
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-18-2004, 02:07 PM
  3. 5.1 sacd analog compatibility?
    By Jottle in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-14-2004, 10:20 PM
  4. Question regarding SACD connections
    By Tyler in forum General Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-29-2004, 05:03 PM
  5. sacd superior to rbcd
    By hifitommy in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-07-2003, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •