gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,877
- Likes
- 4,120
While IQ tests are very flawed (they have a cultural bias), there's no such thing as a negative number.
Yes I know, I was just following along with the analogy.
[1] You know what, Mr. Calbi?
[2] You're a nasty, bitter individual, regardless of how many gold records might be on your wall.
[3] Belittling someone, telling them 'they have everything backwards', that they're 'obfuscating' matters,
[3a] 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.
[4] I'll definitely be suggesting that folks take their mastering business elsewhere!
1. Nope, I've no idea what Mr. Calbi knows. I've never met or even communicated with him. You can't even get your attempted doxxing right!
2. You're the one making the insults and attempting to dox!
3. Actually getting everything backwards and obfuscating matters is the big problem here in the science forum, telling that person they've got it backwards (refuting their falsehoods) isn't, in fact it's encouraged! How after all this time do you still not understand this simple fact?
3a. Again, you're under a delusion! There are many thousands of things to know about TV mixing and many thousands of other things to know about music mastering. Someone who knows one or two of those things is NOT an expert, they're pretty much the opposite of an expert and if they think they are an expert then they're delusional!!!
4. Me too, I've never suggested that my clients go to Mr. Calbi.
[1] Interacting with people who play mind-games and tell you that the bright object shining down from the sky at noon isn't the sun tends to do that to me.
[2] And I'm prod to be a PITA to so called big industry professionals.
[2a] I know a lot more than some of you give me credit for ...
1. Interacting with people looking up at the midnight sky but believing it's noon and therefore insisting that the bright object shining down on them is the sun, will always get the same response: You're ignoring or are ignorant of some of the facts and your assertion is therefore completely false, that bright shiny object is NOT the sun, it's the moon! The first thing a sane person would do is check their facts but not you. You just bleat about being told you're completely wrong, pay the facts "no mind" and therefore blindly continue being completely wrong, so you're refuted again, which you bleat about even more and so on ad infinitum!
2. I too would be proud to be a PITA to big industry professionals BUT ONLY if I actually had my facts straight. If I had the facts completely backwards, then in effect I'd be proud of repeatedly being an ignorant fool!
2a. Then why don't you demonstrate it for a change, instead of demonstrating the exact opposite? What's actually happening is that you're giving yourself unlimited credit for a very limited amount of knowledge! Furthermore, understanding only comes from knowledge of all the pertinent facts, if you're paying some of the pertinent facts "no mind" then you're even more likely to have a false understanding than someone with no knowledge at all, hence the old cliche "a little knowledge is dangerous"!
[1] "Modern CDs have exactly the same dynamic range as vintage CDs..." Of course they do - the format itself that is. What is put on them - then vs recently, does NOT.
2. One would have to be either deaf, dead, or living in the Amazon rain forest to not recognize that.
1. Yes it does and you've been provided with reliable evidence/proof. If you disagree, then this being the science forum, present reliable evidence/proof to the contrary!
2. That's not reliable evidence/proof, it's just an insulting assertion that you've made-up, don't you know the difference? Do you really expect to be given "credit" for this?
[1] Therefore, by definition, modern CDs have the same dynamic range as always... What manifests itself as higher average loudness is NOT a reduction in dynamic range (according to the proper definition of that term). It is in fact a reduction in the crest factor (the average variation between the average level and the peak levels).
[2] I would also disagree with your claim that it is "a technically incorrect procedure that violates every fundamental of recorded sound". It certainly isn't a good way to achieve an accurate reproduction of the original... which would make it a bad idea if that's your gaol. It is absolutely possible to make a recording on a CD that retains most of the dynamic range of the original performance. ... And, personally, I generally prefer recordings that are mixed that way.
Again, I agree in principle with your post but there are a couple of points which aren't quite right.
1. I agree up to the point that "it is in fact a reduction in the crest factor". Certainly the reduction in crest factor correlates with the progression of the loudness war and indicates more compression/limiting (particularly look-ahead limiting). However, crest factor isn't the only factor and indeed crest factor is not part of the calculation of loudness. What manifests as higher average loudness is a higher, frequency adjusted, RMS. Frequency is a huge part of the perception of loudness, it's part of the loudness wars and crest factor does not account for frequency.
2. Again, I agree entirely, up to the last two sentences. Yes, it is possible to maintain the dynamic range of the original performance but typically it's highly undesirable to do so. Even in the case of an acoustic classical music performance, it's typically desirable to reduce the dynamic range somewhat, because the dynamic range recorded is typically greater than the dynamic range the audience would perceive. When it comes to popular genres (rock/pop/electronic/etc.) the situation is far more drastic and I don't see how you could have developed such a preference. Typically, a mix with no dynamics processing never exists and even if one does, it only exists for a few minutes and is almost certainly heard by no one except the engineer. Typically: Half the lead vocal is near inaudible and the lyrics completely unintelligible, the drumkit sounds like a toy drumkit being played in a toilet and the guitars sound like they're playing a different piece (albeit in the same key). It sounds terrible and barely even recognisable, no one would prefer that but because it typically sounds so bad at that stage, no one is allowed to hear it, commonly not even the musicians themselves!
G