[bigshot]

You can feel free to list classical CDs that you think are heavily compressed too Sonic. I would like to hear what you consider compressed.

 

[Indiana]

Thanks for coming back.

It's my pleasure bigshot. Nice to meet you here.

Can you list a few of the most compressed classical recordings in your collection? I have a lot of classical CDs and I can probably pull the same CD and hear what you're talking about. You are talking about modern recordings, right? Because obviously Furtwangler and Toscanini are going to be compressed because of the technology of the time.

I will do my best to give you some good examples of CDs I still own, which I consider to loud for me. You have really a impressive collection btw! I will post you tomorrow cause it's bedtime here.

 

[bigshot]

Very good. If you remember some that you returned too, that would be helpful.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

It's my pleasure bigshot. Nice to meet you here.



I will do my best to give you some good examples of CDs I still own, which I consider to loud for me. You have really a impressive collection btw! I will post you tomorrow cause it's bedtime here.

Just be careful Indiana, like I said... !

 

[bigshot]

Yes, we should all be careful.

 

[old tech]

Just as an aside, there are some good CD choices in this thread.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/your-25-best-sounding-cds.549103/

 

[gregorio]

[1] When you zoom in to the canon parts, they look like fvking TREE STUMPS.
[2] if that's not limiting, I don't know what is.
[3] Thank you. Those dispel the MYTH shared by SOME on here that CD releases of classical music are immune from dynamics processing(IE comp, limiting).
[4] They will tell you to "use your ears - ignore the measurements" or what the meters indicate.

1. When zoomed out, they do look rather like tree stumps, when zoomed in the cannon looks absolutely nothing like tree stumps (or do you mean they look like "tree stumps" fvking?)! There are still some tiny parts of the individual cannon shot which looks "flat topped" but if you were to zoom in even further to those tiny parts, would they still be "flat topped" or would they too disappear? What do you deduce from this, do you deduce that when you're zoomed out, the music is "severely peak limited" but when you're zoomed in it isn't? A rational person would deduce that the "flat top" appearance when zoomed out can just be a consequence of how your audio editing/analysing software is trying to display the data.

2. That's EXACTLY the problem, YOU DON'T KNOW what is (or isn't) limiting!! Even IF, on fully zooming in to those tiny parts of the individual cannon shot, there is still visual evidence of some "flat topping", still that would NOT tell you if a peak-limiter had been applied! It could be the mic reaching it's limits or the tape saturating for example, there's no way to tell from looking at the "waveform" display! Furthermore, even if a limiter has been applied, the second (more zoomed-in) image would suggest ONLY relatively light limiting. That half second of audio is NOT sausage shaped or "tree stump like", it still has considerable variation in dynamics and is clearly NOT "severely peak-limited". Your statement that "the waveform of the entire 1812 track reveals that the canons themselves are severely peak-limited" is therefore FALSE! Likewise, your statement "Proof that dynamics processing WAS used on lots of early, first issue classical and especially pop CDs" is also UTTERLY FALSE. Again, the ONLY thing for which you've provided "Proof" is that you don't know how to look at/interpret a waveform view. Which, also again, would be forgivable if it weren't for the fact we've already been though all this with you previously and here you are again, spouting the same ignorant nonsense that you were before you knew the facts. This is why you're a troll!

3. Indeed, thanks to @SoundAndMotion for the posted images which help dispel the MYTH/nonsense you are trying to peddle! And, even IF compression/limiting has been employed (and there's no proof so far that it has), how would that prove dynamics processing is ubiquitous on classical music? Even you concede it "appears" that ONLY the cannon shots have been compressed/limited, how many classical music recordings include cannons?? And lastly, a cannon is an obvious target for lowering the volume or compression/limiting. How many people could reproduce the (say) 150dB level of an actual cannon being fired, how long would their hearing last if they did, what level would the vast majority of the rest of the piece be and how would you reproduce it, who would be stupid enough to release a commercial recording which absolutely no one could safely enjoy and lastly, who would be stupid enough to ask for such a recording?

4. That's a lie, a deliberate lie!! No one has said "use your ears - ignore the instruments"! The actual meaning of the saying/cliche (which you're mis-quoting) has again been explained to you in detail. Hence why it's not just an inadvertent misrepresentation but a deliberate lie.

EVERY point you've made is EXACTLY the same nonsense: You invent some erroneous conclusions from misinterpreted observations, which are refuted with facts/evidence and explained to you. Facts/Evidence which you cannot rationally dispute and therefore you eventually concede/shut-up. And then, some days/weeks later, up you pop, spouting those exact same erroneous conclusions and misinterpreted observations which have ALREADY been demonstrated to be FALSE and which you've ALREADY conceded?? If that's not trolling, I don't know what is!

G

 

[bigshot]

I have a question... When we're talking about compression in classical music are we talking about the no-name orchestra compilations ("Best of Bach", "Music for Babies", "Relaxing Moods", etc)? I can see those being compressed because they're intended to play at low levels in the background during dinner parties or in the car. You wouldn't want a 70dB kettle drum hit in those kinds of situations. If that's what you're referring to, then I can certainly help steer you to low cost compilations and best ofs that aren't intended to be played as background muzak. Compression isn't the norm in classical music. It's only in the "Classical Music for Dummies" collections.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. When zoomed out, they do look rather like tree stumps, when zoomed in the cannon looks absolutely nothing like tree stumps (or do you mean they look like "tree stumps" fvking?)! There are still some tiny parts of the individual cannon shot which looks "flat topped" but if you were to zoom in even further to those tiny parts, would they still be "flat topped" or would they too disappear? What do you deduce from this, do you deduce that when you're zoomed out, the music is "severely peak limited" but when you're zoomed in it isn't? A rational person would deduce that the "flat top" appearance when zoomed out can just be a consequence of how your audio editing/analysing software is trying to display the data.

2. That's EXACTLY the problem, YOU DON'T KNOW what is (or isn't) limiting!! Even IF, on fully zooming in to those tiny parts of the individual cannon shot, there is still visual evidence of some "flat topping", still that would NOT tell you if a peak-limiter had been applied! It could be the mic reaching it's limits or the tape saturating for example, there's no way to tell from looking at the "waveform" display! Furthermore, even if a limiter has been applied, the second (more zoomed-in) image would suggest ONLY relatively light limiting. That half second of audio is NOT sausage shaped or "tree stump like", it still has considerable variation in dynamics and is clearly NOT "severely peak-limited". Your statement that "the waveform of the entire 1812 track reveals that the canons themselves are severely peak-limited" is therefore FALSE! Likewise, your statement "Proof that dynamics processing WAS used on lots of early, first issue classical and especially pop CDs" is also UTTERLY FALSE. Again, the ONLY thing for which you've provided "Proof" is that you don't know how to look at/interpret a waveform view. Which, also again, would be forgivable if it weren't for the fact we've already been though all this with you previously and here you are again, spouting the same ignorant nonsense that you were before you knew the facts. This is why you're a troll!

3. Indeed, thanks to @SoundAndMotion for the posted images which help dispel the MYTH/nonsense you are trying to peddle! And, even IF compression/limiting has been employed (and there's no proof so far that it has), how would that prove dynamics processing is ubiquitous on classical music? Even you concede it "appears" that ONLY the cannon shots have been compressed/limited, how many classical music recordings include cannons?? And lastly, a cannon is an obvious target for lowering the volume or compression/limiting. How many people could reproduce the (say) 150dB level of an actual cannon being fired, how long would their hearing last if they did, what level would the vast majority of the rest of the piece be and how would you reproduce it, who would be stupid enough to release a commercial recording which absolutely no one could safely enjoy and lastly, who would be stupid enough to ask for such a recording?

4. That's a lie, a deliberate lie!! No one has said "use your ears - ignore the instruments"! The actual meaning of the saying/cliche (which you're mis-quoting) has again been explained to you in detail. Hence why it's not just an inadvertent misrepresentation but a deliberate lie.

EVERY point you've made is EXACTLY the same nonsense: You invent some erroneous conclusions from misinterpreted observations, which are refuted with facts/evidence and explained to you. Facts/Evidence which you cannot rationally dispute and therefore you eventually concede/shut-up. And then, some days/weeks later, up you pop, spouting those exact same erroneous conclusions and misinterpreted observations which have ALREADY been demonstrated to be FALSE and which you've ALREADY conceded?? If that's not trolling, I don't know what is!

G

Don't try to tell me that what I see isn't real, or it isn't what I think it is, Gregorio!

I know what hard limiting in a DAW looks like, and in extreme examples also what it can sound like.

I'm already in the process of warning people who want to join and participate about you, bigshot, and other double-talkers.

 

[gregorio]

It's one thing being ignorant, it's another being wilfully ignorant! You keep complaining that some of us here and many others in various other pro-audio forums are hard on you or even openly hostile/abusive. Why do you think that is and why can't you wake up and smell the roses? You are completely uneducated and inexperienced in this field, yet you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you're right and everyone else (even the highly educated, experienced, professional practitioners), is wrong. The word "delusional" seems wholly inadequate!

G

 

[bfreedma]

Don't try to tell me that what I see isn't real, or it isn't what I think it is, Gregorio!

I know what hard limiting in a DAW looks like, and in extreme examples also what it can sound like.

I'm already in the process of warning people who want to join and participate about you, bigshot, and other double-talkers.

It’s not that what you see isn’t real, it’s that it’s being incompetently assessed and interpreted by you.

No, you clearly don’t know what hard limiting in a DAW looks like. It’s been explained at least three times, the most recent one just above in great detail and in a way that a layman should be able to comprehend, so are you being willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant?

Oh no, our troll in chief is warning other members not to listen to people who clearly demonstrate domain knowledge far greater than you have. Lining up fellow members who also don’t comprehend the discussion is both hysterical and pathetic. I’m sure Bigshot and Gregorio (and others) won’t be able to get out of bed and go about their daily lives.

Do you ever take a step back and ask yourself why this is happening to you in multiple forums? Are you so arrogant that you refuse to consider the obvious? That it’s you who is consistently wrong when attempting to discuss these topics?

And yes, I did take you off ignore because so many of the posts here are refutations of your claims, I was losing context of the discussion.

Edit. Gregorio posted his response while I as writing mine, so the commonality of content and word choice is coincidental, not conspiratorial.

 

[bigshot]

Ignorance is OK. That is just not knowing, and none of us can know everything. The problem is when a person doubles down on their ignorance and refuses to listen to people who might know more than them. That crosses the line beyond ignorance. I'll let you figure out what that's called.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Ignorance is OK. That is just not knowing, and none of us can know everything. The problem is when a person doubles down on their ignorance and refuses to listen to people who might know more than them. That crosses the line beyond ignorance. I'll let you figure out what that's called.

It's one thing being ignorant, it's another being wilfully ignorant! You keep complaining that some of us here and many others in various other pro-audio forums are hard on you or even openly hostile/abusive. Why do you think that is and why can't you wake up and smell the roses? You are completely uneducated and inexperienced in this field, yet you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you're right and everyone else (even the highly educated, experienced, professional practitioners), is wrong. The word "delusional" seems wholly inadequate!

G

I look outside, I see the sun, and I say the sun is bright. Both of you try to tell me it's not bright, or, it's not the sun I'm seeing. You are doing this to me and others, such as Indiana. And now, word of the mind games both of you pull are all over the WWW. You earned it!

 

[gregorio]

I look outside, I see the sun, and I say the sun is bright. Both of you try to tell me it's not bright, or, it's not the sun I'm seeing.

Thanks for proving my point, delusional indeed! We haven't mentioned anything about the sun, we're talking about the graphical display of sample data or have you forgotten?

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Thanks for proving my point, delusional indeed! We haven't mentioned anything about the sun, we're talking about the graphical display of sample data or have you forgotten?

G

It's the principal of my analogy, EINSTEIN. I zoom into a waveform and see flat tops. SOMETHING must have caused it - either intentional peak limiting, tape saturation, or accidental or intentional clipping.