[bigshot]

It's related to the other spec I posted about the dynamic range of human ears. We can hear about 45dB of dynamic range at a time without having to take time for our ears to adjust to the different peak level. Look it up.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

It's related to the other spec I posted about the dynamic range of human ears. We can hear about 45dB of dynamic range at a time without having to take time for our ears to adjust to the different peak level. Look it up.

Does that justify squashing the recorded product to compensate?

Does a symphony orchestra or a good acoustic jazz band care about "45db at a time"?

If ya can't stand the heat, get back to the cheap seats! I'm not a front row attendee myself.

 

[gregorio]

Again, how did you determine that your system isn't capable of that and that you have never listened to that level? No, you can't use your dumb SPL meter for any of that analysis. What is important here is instantaneous levels not slow average. At LA audio show, someone asked Andrew Jones what the SPL levels were that his ELAC speakers were producing in that setting. He first asked the listeners to give numbers. People were like you, throwing small numbers like 80 and 90 db around. His answer was that the peaks were hitting in the neighborhood of 115 db!
[2] The music was dynamic and maybe "loud" by some standards but not at all what you are assuming. In these discussions people take these SPL numbers as if we are sitting there listening to continuous tone at 120 SPL. We are not remotely doing that. We are talking momentary peaks that may last just a few milliseconds. ... [2a] Converting 0.125 for 120 db in minutes we get 7.5. In other words, you need to listen for 7.5 minutes to the same constant noise, not a few milliseconds as we have in music, to hurt your ears. ...
[3] So please don't keep talking like these are unheard of numbers. Can't be done. We will go deaf, etc., etc. These are forum objectivists talking points we need to leave behind.

1. In the commercial dub stages I work at the systems are calibrated to -20dBFS = 85dBSPL(C), max instantaneous peaks at near 0dBFS would therefore be around 115dB. However, in a smaller room, say a good sized living room, that figure needs to be reduced by at least 7dB. And, this is for feature films, for music that figure needs to be reduced by about another 8dB because of the compression and the fact that the "momentary peaks" are very significantly less than the roughly 35dB above normal levels, as they are with films. With the vast majority of commercial music releases momentary peaks of 120dB will result in a significant amount/duration of the music being around or even above 100dB.

2. Furthermore, as has been explained to you and as you consistently deliberately ignore, the human ear has a dynamic range of around 60dB (or less) NOT the 120dB you keep quoting. To attain the 120dB figure requires a threshold shift of that 60dB window. In the case of say orchestral musicians, they have a fairly high noise floor to start with, due to the fact there are 90 or so people in the room, all breathing, moving, turning pages and operating mechanical instruments. If the noise floor of the venue plus all these musicians were say 40dB, then the threshold shift required of the 60dB window would be in the region of 20dB. It must also be noted that even with the real life noise floors of symphony orchestras, studies (for example "Hearing protection and hearing symptoms in Danish symphony orchestras", 2006) have shown significant hearing damage (permanent threshold shift) for orchestral musicians and incidentally, film re-recording mixers also commonly have work related hearing problems. In fact, quite a few orchestral musicians and some film re-recording mixers routinely wear hearing protection while working! However, you are talking about detectable noise floors around 0dB and therefore a much larger threshold shift! If you want to listen to all your music with a 0dB noise floor AND the same high SPLs as the musicians themselves experience, it's your ears and your look out. Additionally of course, all this is just for orchestral and purely acoustic music genres, which generally has a significantly lower RMS than the other, far more popular music genres!
2a. Unsurprisingly, you avoided my point and question about 32 bit releases. What does your disputed OSHA chart say is the acceptable duration for (24bit) 144dBSPL peaks and what about (32bit) 192dB peaks? Again, what is the problem with the 120dB range of 16bit????

3. I object to people cherry picking the most favorable studies, evidence and rarest conditions, while ignoring other evidence and real life conditions, just to support an agenda or win an argument. I object even more strongly when that cherry picked evidence is presented as "real life" BUT, when that cherry picked evidence is so far beyond real life that it's potentially dangerous/damaging, I object in the STRONGEST TERMS POSSIBLE!!! This quoted statement of yours is breath-takingly hypocritical amirm and highly irresponsible!

DId you ever do the simple test of converting your music to 50 db of effective dynamic range like I did?

As I'm sure you well know amirm your simple test does NOT convert to 50dB of effective dynamic range! 8 bit provides for 48dB, the last of those 8 bits is dither noise and we are not defining the dynamic range as loudest peak to digital noise floor, as has ALREADY been explained to you! In many cases it's trivially easy to hear dither noise at -42dB.

I've answered your questions, why do you continue to deflect and refuse to answer mine?

G

 

[gregorio]

[1] Impossible? In reality it's one of the most trivial things to quantify. A simple histogram shows the distributions and reliably picks out the over compressed/clipped tracks, additionally an entire track with the same consistent level peaks regardless of RMS level or frequency (the classic 'brick' shape) is a classic tell.
[2] ... no 'perfectly acceptable' amount of compression squashes down a 6dB peak into a small range of around -40dB or less.
[3] If you'd actually bothered looking at some waveforms you'd not be making these daft statements. Indeed your statements lead me to conclude that you may have heard the phrase 'loudness war' but have no real idea or grasp of the problem; just an observation, because like many you simply have decided your opinions trump any research.
[3a] I have nothing against ignorance ....

1. Obviously you don't know what the word "quantify" means. Yes, seeing a brick shaped waveform would tend to indicate severe over-compression (although that is not always the case) but that's all it tells us, it does NOT tell us how much compression has been applied and the word "quantify" means; to determine how much!
2. Absolutely it can and on occasion applying large amounts of compression is not only "perfectly acceptable" but actually highly desirable! I'm talking in general though, as your figures don't make sense.
3. That's funny! I look at waveforms for roughly 8 hours almost every single working day and have done for about 20 years. And, as one of those music/sound engineers often required to create mixes/masters which perpetuate the loudness wars then obviously it's NOT just an observation, it's 25 years practical experience of actually doing it! The reason my statements may seem daft to you and why they have led you to a conclusion which is so completely opposite to the truth is because ...
3a. Not only do you have nothing against ignorance but you apparently seem to be very strongly in favour of it!!!

Again, accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of, is going to accomplish nothing other than to make yourself look foolish. Obviously, you have a moderately poor/limited understanding of the mixing/mastering process, of the approval process and of when, how and why compression is used. Either you ask some questions and gain a better understanding or continue to defend your misunderstanding/s and make yourself look ever more foolish, your choice.

G

 

[Cutestudio]

1. Obviously you don't know what the word "quantify" means.

You are free of course to redefine any word the way you like, we don't need many decimal places to detect the mastering carnage and mangled remasters.
Peak/RMS expressed as dB doesn't have any mystical sense for you to fathom, it does however show the amount of damage between original tracks and the remasters to a reasonable accuracy, backed up by histograms the damage is then plain to see and quantifiable in various ways as you are obviously aware.

1. Obviously you don't know what the word "quantify" means.
2. Absolutely it can and on occasion applying large amounts of compression is not only "perfectly acceptable" but actually highly desirable! I'm talking in general though, as your figures don't make sense.

Your definition of 'perfectly acceptable' and 'highly desirable' differs from people forced to listen to their purchases. Shoddy products damage sales, the record industry is not immune.

3. That's funny! I look at waveforms for roughly 8 hours almost every single working day and have done for about 20 years.

Clearly then you are either not looking at the final product of mastering for CD or other distribution, or if you are you have somehow convinced yourself that clipped and over compressed brick shaped waveforms are 'perfectly acceptable' and 'highly desirable'. Again, good for you, but don't expect anyone else to like them, especially on a HiFi forum.

Again, accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of

??. Cheer up Greg, what you are experiencing is 'people disagreeing with you', obviously it's a novelty for you but not everything has to be about your ego.

 

[bigshot]

Does that justify squashing the recorded product to compensate?
Does a symphony orchestra or a good acoustic jazz band care about "45db at a time"?

Yes. Making a great sounding recording usually involves using compression. Especially with vocals.
Yes, the conductor is up there adjusting balances to keep the range within a comfortable level.

More isn't better. Just right is best. A dynamic range greater than 50dB in a single song is uncomfortable to listen to. You'd be running to grab the volume control to turn it up in the quiet parts and turn it down in the loud parts- essentially manually compressing it.

There's no reason to clip a digital recording, but compression is a useful tool. It can be abused for sure, but it is essential nonetheless.

 

[gregorio]

[1] You are free of course to redefine any word the way you like, we don't need many decimal places to detect the mastering carnage and mangled remasters.
[2] Peak/RMS expressed as dB doesn't have any mystical sense for you to fathom, it does however show the amount of damage between original tracks and the remasters to a reasonable accuracy, backed up by histograms the damage is then plain to see and quantifiable in various ways as you are obviously aware.
[3] Your definition of 'perfectly acceptable' and 'highly desirable' differs from people forced to listen to their purchases.
[4] Clearly then you are either not looking at the final product of mastering for CD or other distribution, or if you are [4a] you have somehow convinced yourself that clipped and over compressed brick shaped waveforms are 'perfectly acceptable' and 'highly desirable'.

1. Oh dear, I see you've gone for the second option, of just keep accusing others of what you're guilty of and making a fool of yourself.
2. I take it you mean an earlier master and a re-master? You don't, I presume, have access to the original tracks and therefore you have no idea how much compression was applied to them during mixing. Likewise, you have no idea how much further compression was added to that compressed mix in the earlier master and no idea of the amount of compression added on the re-master. All you've got is a comparison of the crest factor of one already compressed master with the crest factor of another compressed master (remaster) but you have absolutely no idea how much compression either contains. And, this crest factor comparison of two already compressed masters does not necessarily purely relate to compression, as EQ and simple level changes can affect the crest factor. As you would know, if you were not so ignorant of the mixing and mastering processes!
3. Who is forcing you to purchase and listen? Why don't you report them?
4. Ah, you've got me. That's where I'm going wrong, I'm not looking at the masters which I make, can't believe I've been forgetting to do that for 25 years!
4a. OK, so you've demonstrated you don't know what "quantify" means and now that you can't read, as I stated very clearly that I've been arguing against the loudness wars for a very long time, almost as long as I've been in the business. I do not condone clipping, except in some very exceptional circumstances and I don't condone over-compression. However, you appear to be defining over-compression as 6dB, in which case just about every single commercial rock/pop track in about the last 50 years is shoddy, not worth buying, damaged (or whatever) according to you! All you're really doing with this particular argument is demonstrating your ignorance of the approval process, because regardless of what I consider to be a "perfectly acceptable" amount of compression, the final decision is down to the clients; the artists and producer or record label. And, with no exceptions I can recall over the past 25 years, the amount of compression they want is either the same or more than I would apply if the decision were mine!

While over-compression/the loudness war does reduce dynamic range and therefore require considerably fewer than 16 bits, this conversation/argument is effectively now off-topic and I didn't start this thread just to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance and make a fool of yourself.

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

You are free of course to redefine any word the way you like, we don't need many decimal places to detect the mastering carnage and mangled remasters.
Peak/RMS expressed as dB doesn't have any mystical sense for you to fathom, it does however show the amount of damage between original tracks and the remasters to a reasonable accuracy, backed up by histograms the damage is then plain to see and quantifiable in various ways as you are obviously aware.


Your definition of 'perfectly acceptable' and 'highly desirable' differs from people forced to listen to their purchases. Shoddy products damage sales, the record industry is not immune.


Clearly then you are either not looking at the final product of mastering for CD or other distribution, or if you are you have somehow convinced yourself that clipped and over compressed brick shaped waveforms are 'perfectly acceptable' and 'highly desirable'. Again, good for you, but don't expect anyone else to like them, especially on a HiFi forum.


??. Cheer up Greg, what you are experiencing is 'people disagreeing with you', obviously it's a novelty for you but not everything has to be about your ego.

Cutestudio:

These guys know they're trying to justify bad practices and LO-Fi product, and can't stand being told by relative outsiders, or at least, insiders who haven't reached the same point in the Peter Principle as they, and accordingly throw, as exemplfied in #4432, a bunch of diatribe about how WE'RE in the wrong, how we're the ones who are crazy! We're just wasting our time.

 

[gregorio]

Yes, the conductor is up there adjusting balances to keep the range within a comfortable level.

Often, that means telling the brass section to play quieter. One notable exception I clearly recall is Leonard Bernstein stopping the orchestra during a rehearsal and telling me that as my part was marked ffffff (forte x 6), I should play it as loudly as possible. We ran through the section again and I did as requested, much to the amusement of the orchestra (whom I obliterated) and on-lookers ... Mr. Bernstein was forced to retract/temper his request!

G

 

[gregorio]

We're just wasting our time.

If you don't want to waste your time, then I suggest you learn how to read. What part of the "I don't condone over-compression" and "I've been arguing against the loudness war for nearly 25 years" did you not understand?

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

If you don't want to waste your time, then I suggest you learn how to read. What part of the "I don't condone over-compression" and "I've been arguing against the loudness war for nearly 25 years" did you not understand?

G

Alright, perhaps you're not as bad as bigshot in that regard.

I don't oppose entirely the use of compression, but I do oppose it being used on top of whatever amount was used in creating the final stereo master used for vinyl, CD, whatever 30 years ago, in the remastering process. Doing so changes the sound from what the original master sounded like, and therefore is no longer authentic.

 

[amirm]

It's related to the other spec I posted about the dynamic range of human ears. We can hear about 45dB of dynamic range at a time without having to take time for our ears to adjust to the different peak level. Look it up.

You said content has that range, not what we hear:

Classical music is the opposite side of the spectrum, and it can have as much as a 50dB range.

So I ask again where you got that information that classical music has a "50 db range?"

Or do you want to take that back as having no basis in anything other than a guess on your part?

 

[bigshot]

If you don't want to waste your time, then I suggest you learn how to read. What part of the "I don't condone over-compression" and "I've been arguing against the loudness war for nearly 25 years" did you not understand?

And I suggest that he struggle to understand that the use of compression in a mix is not the same as the loudness war. Compression is a tool that is used in almost all mixes, even the ones from the golden past that he's championing.

Amirm, our ability to hear is directly related to how sound engineers mix. They mix to what the human ear can hear. The goal is clarity and organization of sound. They don't create a mix according to numbers on a page. Commercial mixes stay in a dynamic range of 45 to 50dB because that is what ears can hear without having to adjust. Do some simple googling and you'll figure it out. I'm not going to the trouble to scribble on a book with yellow highlighter and scan it when you really aren't interested in anything but your own words.

I've explained both of these things many times and it doesn't seem to register. Ignorance is OK. As Mark Twain said, "Everyone is ignorant... just on different subjects." I know stuff. You know stuff. We should find a way to communicate, not throw up roadblocks like you're doing. I'm here to communicate, not to go in circles repeating the same thing over and over again. When people do that, I start skimming over the repetitive parts of their posts and speak past them in my replies for the benefit of the lurkers. I'll start talking past you and the witch hunt duo too soon.

 

[amirm]

You've got that backward. The PR tactic is to show information below 16 bits and then to say you need more than 16 bits in your normal living room.

What is a "normal living room?" People listening with headphones which has no rooms. And they have dedicated listening rooms. We cannot impose limits on fidelity of music by assuming people sit in their living room to listen.

And to what end anyway? The music industry has already started to distribute higher resolution music. What is the point of campaigning against it? You want them to stop? To what end?

What is the logic of this discussion anyway? It is not like we are 20 years ago and fighting over SACD/DVD-A vs CD. We are in digital age where there is no barrier to distribution of high-resolution music and its playback. You guys want to turn the tide back? Why?

 

[gregorio]

I don't oppose entirely the use of compression, but I do oppose it being used on top of whatever amount was used in creating the final stereo master used for vinyl, CD, whatever 30 years ago, in the remastering process. Doing so changes the sound from what the original master sounded like, and is therefore no longer authentic.

While not condoning over-compression, what would be the point of paying a mastering engineer to create a remaster which sounds exactly the same as an already existing, previous master? The whole point of a remaster is to make it sound different!

You say you don't oppose entirely the use of compression but I'm saying that's a bizarre statement! Compression is a vital tool, it's used at numerous stages/places in the process of creating a commercial song; at the individual channel level, at the sub group level, on the final mix and then again during mastering. If you object to compression, then you object to all rock and pop music from the early mid-1960's to the present day. The question/problem is not and cannot be about whether compression is used, because it must be, the problem is over-compression and that is extremely hard to define because it varies, from track to track and genre to genre. In other words, exactly the same amount of compression on one song which sounds great, may sound like a completely ridiculous amount of over-compression on another song.

G