Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TotalSonic]

Ronny wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 00:54

Hello, My name is Ronny, crowd: "hello, Ronny" I'm a recovering pancaker. I started out squashing things to -8dB, but only once or twice a week, than it started to get hold of me. Before long I was squashing to -6dB and 5 times a week. Eventually I couldn't stop squashing everything to -4dB. By that time I was in denial but eventually my wife talked some sense into me and I decided that I better seek help from a higher crest factor. Last week I got my -10dB token and I'm confident that in another month or two I'll be able to get my -11dB token.

Now - that's funny!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Ronny]

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 22:52

I think we are missing a tremendously valid point here, as well as a golden opportunity.  If there is a law to be made (as there so obviously must be), it should legislate that all consumer playback hardware have a "never-under-exceed low limit."  IOW, it would be impossible to turn the playback DOWN below a pre-determined minimum.  If we set that minimum allowable volume exceedingly high, all mastering engineers will eventually be forced by the public (at least those with bookshelf speakers in apartments), to keep the final output level much lower!  We could call this the T-Level. Of course, there would probably just end up being a black market in speaker cable-inserted attenuators...

That would actually lessen dynamic range, because you would still have the -0dBFs ceiling limit and also the peak levels enforced by the FCC. It would also waste power on the hardware and police the ability of the consumer to turn music down. What ya gonna do for elevator music. No, anyone that dictates what they perceive as a "proper" level to all humans across the board is not only being impractical, they are being impersonal and self-centered. You might as well try to get them to reinvent baseball, because you think that left field is too far from home plate. The whole deal about liberty and freedom is, NOT pushing the preferences of a few on the masses. Loud is always going to be subjective and individual to each listener. When you start enforcing art laws you regress to a police state no different than the Taliban countries that outlaw music altogether.  

[Arf! Mastering]

dcollins wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 01:48

Because you were eqating it with breaking the law, so I figgures you are the enforcer. DC

I was equating it with abuse of privilege, actually. That's what I get for mixing metaphors without a warning label.  This hyped clip business is not about artistic freedom, it's about a weapon to  demolish the competition.  It's having the biggest SUV on the street so you can mow down anything that gets in your way.  Bob and I aren't the only ones pissed.  Some of the very designers whose products are being abused are readying some counter-weapons of their own in an effort to create some space for music to breathe again.  By the way, I really like the "Arbor Press" thing - can I use it?

[dcollins]

AlanS wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 23:38

By the way, I really like the "Arbor Press" thing - can I use it?

Party on.  I had American Chopper on in the background.  It could have been "The Angle Grinder" or "The Step Drill"

DC

[jackthebear]

AlanS wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 16:38

Some of the very designers whose products are being abused are readying some counter-weapons of their own in an effort to create some space for music to breathe again.

People abuse the products so if designers are going down this path they should label these new "improved " boxes as the Keystone Kops Edition.

Can you imagine Winshester developing a rifle that only fires marshmallows?

[dcollins]

jackthebear wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 00:59

Can you imagine Winchester developing a rifle that only fires marshmallows?

When limiters are outlawed, only outlaws will have limiters.

DC

[Ronny]

jackthebear wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 03:59

AlanS wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 16:38 Some of the very designers whose products are being abused are readying some counter-weapons of their own in an effort to create some space for music to breathe again.   People abuse the products so if designers are going down this path they should label these new "improved " boxes as the Keystone Kops Edition. Can you imagine Winshester developing a rifle that only fires marshmallows?

If loud was really a big deal, they'd legalize silencers.

If you outlaw loud, only criminals will have loud systems.

Let's make some more laws that protect people from themselves, for example.

1. Headphone SPL will not exceed 90dBA. People are going deaf because the SPL is too high.

2. Outlaw the Who and Deep Purple.

3. Stop the Space Shuttle launches.

4. No more jet airliners.

5. Cruise liner warning whistles will not exceed 100dB.

6. All Nascar autos must have mufflers.

7. Go to jail if you take the muffler off of your Harley.

8. Yelling wives must not exceed 75dB.







Hey, wait a minute, that last one may be worth shooting for.  

[aivoryuk]

Although I can understand why people would want to have a format with a whatever on it to crank the levels (it would mean that we can cut sensible levels for albums),

but i can see real problems with it as well.
I would see this as the equivalent of people that mix with finalizers on the bus because they are trying to emulate their favourite squashed cd's.

you may have cut a beautiful master with dynamic levels, but if you know that some consumer is going to have a whatever  on it, the temptation to then see how your master sounds with it on is great.
Then what i would forsee happening is, if you didn't like the sound of what you were hearing I think most people would go back and change what they have perviously done.

In my opinion, i think i would rather do all the squashing, limiting at my stage, rather than having to rely on someting that comes after. at least i am in control to a extent

[bobkatz]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 13:36

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 12:16 If you win this argument, then there is absolutely no future for quality sound. Period. You can't win it. Haha, Bob, you act as if I'm against cutting dynamic, good-sounding records. This discussion will have little impact on the music industry, but hopefully will make some mastering engineers think about their role.

I know you are one of the good guys, Brad... that is not part of the discussion. Fortunately. I'd rather have an argument with somone a priori than someone who has a vested interest.

Quote:

I tell people all the time how loud I think their record should be, and regularly cut records that are 3-5dB quieter than the 'a-list' engineers I beat out for the gig. We're talking about a creative field and you guys act like no one can possibly cut a dynamic record because the new Green Day record is loud or because pop music isn't about sound quality.

We're also talking about a field where A&R who used to seek out mastering engineers because of sound quality or reputation, now seek out mastering engineers because of how loud a disc they can make.

Has it occurred to you all that the mastering engineers who would protest this proposal the most are the ones whose only "advantage" is the loudness of their records but otherwise their sound sucks? There would be an awful number of "hack" mastering engineers who wouldn't like this because the sound quality of their work would be exposed by an equal playing field. The easiest way to impress ANYONE is to turn up the volume.

Please let us not divert this thread into the specifics of dialnorm or its implementation or its weaknesses. This thread is a discussion with one premise: That without implementing dialnorm the next audio medium is doomed to failure, that it will soon be just as abused as the current one. And that the loudness race itself makes it impossible for VERY good sounding masters to coexist with bad-sounding ones (the ones that are significantly louder). That is my premise and, frankly, my conclusion.

BK

[Jerry Tubb]

dcollins wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 03:07

jackthebear wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 00:59 Can you imagine Winchester developing a rifle that only fires marshmallows? When limiters are outlawed, only outlaws will have limiters. DC

Double Har !

That's funny ...both you guys!

[bblackwood]

bobkatz wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 12:08

This thread is a discussion with one premise: That without implementing dialnorm the next audio medium is doomed to failure, that it will soon be just as abused as the current one. And that the loudness race itself makes it impossible for VERY good sounding masters to coexist with bad-sounding ones (the ones that are significantly louder). That is my premise and, frankly, my conclusion.

Well, I can only say that my empirical evidence, having cut a number of singles that sound great on the radio right next to overly squashed mixes, is to the contrary...

[Spiritwalkerpro]

Sounds like you mastering engineers are fighting the same battle us mixing engineers are fighting.  I work hard to get the sound I can for my clients, and then they want the living c**p squeezed out of it.  Now at my level they won't go to you mastering guys to do the dirty work.  They want me to hypercompress my work with the tools I have.  If this trend is anything like the studio business where every dog, ardvark and tick on the ardvark with a soundblaster card is a recording studio, expect to see a digital watch that records/mixes/masters/hpercompresses selling at Wal-Mart.  For $19.95 CDN.  I hate it, an earlier poster pointed out that some clients prefer this sound.  It's true, it's sad but true.  I have to give them what they want, archive their material and only hope that they come back in ten years to remix...on my new recording watch/recorder.

Some days I have to wonder, didn't it used to be about the songs?

Norm

[bobkatz]

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 October 2005 13:34

Well, I can only say that my empirical evidence, having cut a number of singles that sound great on the radio right next to overly squashed mixes, is to the contrary...

Who's saying anything about the radio?  I specifically mentioned juke boxes, bars, book and record store kiosks, and cd changers.

BK

[12345]

Perhaps the solution is education.  EVERY TIME a customer says, "!!!I want it LOUD!!!!", isn't it our job as professionals to "educate" them on the pros and cons of being "loud?"  I think so.  

They may still decide to pump it loud this time, but perhaps the next time they'll think twice, and then the time afer that actually perhaps decide that they like dynamic range over loudness.  It would almost be a maturation thing...the newbies want it loud, whereas the people they look up to would be recording with headroom...

It's kind of like my experience with guitar amps, guitars, etc.--being able to actually hear the difference between different amps and know how each one will sound under different circumstances.  

MW

[ralbrecht]

I've been browsing this board for a few weeks now and have enjoyed reading many of the interesting discussions. I thought I would share my thoughts on this topic...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the issue with a dialnorm implementation. I think it is a great idea. If I'm listening to a jazz or classical audiophile disc (i.e. a RCA Living Stereo re-issue) and then feel like listening to a Wilco disc, naturally I'm going to turn down my monitoring level for comfort. Should we argue that adjusting the volume knob is inhibiting artistic freedom? The dialnorm would simply say to the player, "Hey, adjust the volume to this new level," at the beginning of each disc. The album's dynamic range (or lack there of) would be left unchanged. If the consumer doesn't like the predefined level, they can turn diallnorm off, and adjust the volume level manually. I agree that a dialnorm will be a great way to fight the "loudness race" with its implementation on future high-res consumer audio formats.

-Ryan Albrecht