1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Testing audiophile claims and myths

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by prog rock man, May 3, 2010.
First
 
Back
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881
Next
 
Last
  1. TheSonicTruth
    One can 'normalize' a set of audio files to anything they wish: Peaks, average, loudness, RMS, -10, -20, -40 dBfs, whatever. I prefer whatever normalization it is called that ensures that I NEVER EVER have to touch my volume control at any point even during a 50 song playlist(!) Is that called loudness normalization or average level normalization?

    One can loudness-normalize by ear, or with the aid of a loudness-based meter.
     
  2. GearMe
    castleofargh likes this.
  3. TheSonicTruth
  4. gregorio
    1. It represents the headroom you could employ if 0dB = -24dBFS.
    1a. No, clipping would then occur at +24dB (0dBFS).
    1b. You set your peak level a bit below 0dBFS and that is your headroom. You have to realise that there is no direct correlation between the digital dBFS scale and the analogue dB scale (which typically means the dBVU scale). In the film world this is standardized, -20dBFS = 0dBVU but in the music world it's whatever you want. Bob has chosen -24dBFS = 0dB to illustrate his point.

    2. Yes, again, "normalisation" simply means adjustment to the same specified amount of a specified property. Your understanding of normalization is limited to only (the property of) peak and only (the amount of) 0dBFS. However, the property could be for example RMS (IE. RMS Normalization rather than peak normalization) and the amount could be -20dBFS or any other amount. In the case of old analogue TV, the property was quasi-peak and the amount varied by country or region but in the UK TV audio was (quasi-peak) normalised to +5.5 on a BBC quasi peak program meter (QPPM). Loudness normalisation has nothing to do with peak or quasi-peak levels, it is normalisation referenced against (has the property of) the perception of loudness and the amount in ATSC specifications is -24LKFS or -23LUFS in Europe. As loudness normalisation has nothing to do with peak levels, max permitted peak levels have to be specified separately (but not normalized to!).

    Indeed it does. If you're going to pay the facts "no mind" then obviously you're never going to arrive at "the sonic truth"!

    G
     
    Steve999 likes this.
  5. TheSonicTruth
    That SOS article tries to refute the loudness war, both the recent nuclear(digital) one, and the long-term uptick in overall loudness in recorded songs and albums. I know what I can both hear, and confirm(in a DAW).
     
  6. gregorio
    And of course that's why DJ's do it, they don't want anyone to dance, they want everyone to exit the f*cking club and they want to earn good money from the night club owners for doing so. Sorry, I'm confused, I thought you didn't want me to say that you've got it completely backwards?

    What I would want to do or what you would want to do is irrelevant. This is the sound science forum not the "what thesonictruth would want to do" forum! How many times???

    G
     
  7. TheSonicTruth
    Well, the 'science' I follow suggests that even limited exposure to excessively high volume levels can be hazardous to hearing in and even overall health, long-term. If the music in a club is so dam loud I can't even hear myself to say excuse me to get across the room to the restroom, or order a drink, then it's too dam LOUD - period!

    Even someone with a negative IQ(if possible) could figure that out.
     
  8. GearMe
    There's a variety of implementations out there...I've tried it for a while but then went away from it. Glad you've got something that works for you!

    If I recall, Foobar was able to do a variety of different formats in one scan.
     
  9. TheSonicTruth
    I can get Foobar to calculate the amount of replay gain, but I don't know how to apply it! IE if a certain WAV requires -2.7dB playback gain, how do I embed that in meta?
     
  10. gregorio
    1. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. The very first sentence, emphasised in bold, is: "We all know music is getting louder." The article absolutely does NOT try to refute the loudness war and it in fact proves that there is one, what the article is actually questioning is a common misunderstanding about the loudness war. Apparently then, you are paying it "no mind" because you don't have a mind capable of understanding it!

    1a. Assuming you have a DAW with loudness analysis tools (and know how to use them) then yes, you could confirm what you think you're hearing.

    1. No, not too damn loud - period, too damn loud for you. If it were too damn loud period, then it would be deserted and soon go out of business. This is NOT the "what's too damn loud for thesonictruth" forum!! Again. how many times?
    1a. Yes, even someone with a negative IQ could figure this out, someone with an even lower IQ would be able to figure it out once it's been explained and someone with a still lower IQ could figure it out, after it's been repeatedly explained numerous times. Again, how many times are you going to need and where does that leave you, a magnitude below a negative IQ, more than a magnitude?

    G
     
  11. Davesrose
    While IQ tests are very flawed (they have a cultural bias), there's no such thing as a negative number. Unless, like the *arbitrary* number of nominal level in digital...we set the "average" 100 to 0 :) But to get back on subject, I think it's best to take a higher ground and not bandy about "low IQ".
     
  12. TheSonicTruth
    I was being facetious when I mentioned a 'negative' IQ. Don't take it so literal. Common sense should tell anyone that if their ears are starting to buzz that they should not be in a club that loud.
     
  13. Davesrose
    Hard not to take it literal in the "science" forum:gs1000smile:
     
  14. TheSonicTruth
    You know what, Mr. Calbi?

    You're a nasty, bitter individual, regardless of how many gold records might be on your wall.

    Belittling someone, telling them 'they have everything backwards', that they're 'obfuscating' matters, all political tools used to cover one's butt when they're confronted with someone who knows a thing or two about that person's profession.

    I'll definitely be suggesting that folks take their mastering business elsewhere!
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
  15. bigshot
    Bingo! There's my answer. I was reading zero as the clipping point. -24dB is some arbitrary buffer they're building in. OK. If you just drew the digital chart with zero as the edge of clipping, it would look pretty much the same as the analog chart.

    SonicTruth, you are really making a pain in the ass of yourself. That is what Gregorio is trying to tell you with his colorful bluntness. When I was talking about ignoring, I was referring to you. You're like a broken record and you don't listen to anything anyone else says. Those aren't good traits. Your spitefulness is even worse. I'd suggest that you should sit down and be quiet. Take a walk in the sunshine. Interact with people in real life. This forum doesn't bring out the best in you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
First
 
Back
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881
Next
 
Last

Share This Page