[pinnahertz]

  I never talked to greg before, but his comment reminds me of another guy online on a different forum that does more of his British sarcasm than he did contributing to the forum.
 
I have ways to respond to people like that virtuously.
 
I agree, its not mastering, and because of this, I spoke out and got fired. My old boss got mad at me when I told him they are mutilating the cd, not mastering it.
 
Oh well, them keeping me quiet about it is over. so I decided to air it.
 
They actually ruined the cd format for the consumer. 
Plus ruining the depth of the mixes of my Audio engineering mentors that I interned for them.
they clip it just enough so that the dac will rebuilds it.
It was the only way they can get a dac to produce a signal hotter than it came in.
so if anyone makes a cd they have to either break the rules or it won't be a loud recording.
I think I mentioned they modified an ADC to do this wile capturing.
 
I posted this info on a recording forum and a mastering guy that trolls that site pm me and said: Hey, they already revealed it to the students. (that is fine and dandy, but not to any one else)
of course he replied differently on the post: " Yes it was revealed a long time ago "

"they clip it just enough so that the dac will rebuilds it."
DACS never rebuild the damage caused by a clip.  Not possible.
 
"It was the only way they can get a dac to produce a signal hotter than it came in."
This may be a reference to intersample peaks, where the reconstruction process creates a peak from two adjacent 0dBFS words that ends up somewhat higher than 0dBFS at the output.  This is technically an error in reconstruction, and NOT desirable for many reasons.  It's generally frowned upon because of the potential for distortion, especially after lossy compression is applied.  And, does not change the RMS level or resulting loudness.  

 

[drtechno]

  "they clip it just enough so that the dac will rebuilds it."
DACS never rebuild the damage caused by a clip.  Not possible.
 
"It was the only way they can get a dac to produce a signal hotter than it came in."
This may be a reference to intersample peaks, where the reconstruction process creates a peak from two adjacent 0dBFS words that ends up somewhat higher than 0dBFS at the output.  This is technically an error in reconstruction, and NOT desirable for many reasons.  It's generally frowned upon because of the potential for distortion, especially after lossy compression is applied.  And, does not change the RMS level or resulting loudness.  

Are you payed by the industry to keep their secret a secret?
 
Its either that or you are a very argumentative about any info.
 
By the way, if you don't like what I say you can just ignore me. Of course, if you wished to learn something from someone that has been in the record industry for 25 years, you can stick around and comment in a more objective way.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

 
"they clip it just enough so that the dac will rebuilds it."
DACS never rebuild the damage caused by a clip.  Not possible.

"It was the only way they can get a dac to produce a signal hotter than it came in."
This may be a reference to intersample peaks, where the reconstruction process creates a peak from two adjacent 0dBFS words that ends up somewhat higher than 0dBFS at the output.  This is technically an error in reconstruction, and NOT desirable for many reasons.  It's generally frowned upon because of the potential for distortion, especially after lossy compression is applied.  And, does not change the RMS level or resulting loudness.  

Are you payed by the industry to keep their secret a secret?

Its either that or you are a very argumentative about any info.

By the way, if you don't like what I say you can just ignore me. Of course, if you wished to learn something from someone that has been in the record industry for 25 years, you can stick around and comment in a more objective way.

Just because we all hate the recording industry doesn't mean we won't call you out on spewing bull-sheesh.

Perhaps, possibly, what you recited reflected the state of the art and how things were actually done in 2003. But things have long since moved on and many of the technical details you present were simply incorrect no matter what the year is/was.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

By the way, if you don't like what I say you can just ignore me. Of course, if you wished to learn something from someone that has been in the record industry for 25 years, you can stick around and comment in a more objective way.

:speaking as if not everyone in this thread has been (or claims to have been) in the record industry for at least as long: :rolleyes:

 

[drtechno]

Just because we all hate the recording industry doesn't mean we won't call you out on spewing bull-sheesh.

Perhaps, possibly, what you recited reflected the state of the art and how things were actually done in 2003. But things have long since moved on and many of the technical details you present were simply incorrect no matter what the year is/was.

I'm not spewing BS.
I posted this so the truth would be told.
 
But if you guys don't want to believe it, thats fine too.

 

[gregorio]

 
[1] By the way, if you don't like what I say you can just ignore me. [2] Of course, if you wished to learn something from someone that has been in the record industry for 25 years, you can stick around and comment in a more objective way.

 
1. This is the science forum. If you're going to make stuff up and spout BS which is against the science then you are not going to get ignored, you're going to get called out on it!
 
2. I'm going to call you out on this claim too. I don't see how it's possible for someone to be in the recording industry for 25 years and apparently not know even the basics of digital audio theory, unless of course you were not actually an audio engineer but fulfilled some other role in the industry, like an admin assistant or something.
 
G

 

[pinnahertz]

   
1. This is the science forum. If you're going to make stuff up and spout BS which is against the science then you are not going to get ignored, you're going to get called out on it!
 
2. I'm going to call you out on this claim too. I don't see how it's possible for someone to be in the recording industry for 25 years and apparently not know even the basics of digital audio theory, unless of course you were not actually an audio engineer but fulfilled some other role in the industry, like an admin assistant or something.
 
G

It's entirely possible he hasn't been in the recording industry for all that time, at least, not at at technical level. Otherwise the (claimed) job history might not include this: See this post.

 

[gregorio]

  It's entirely possible he hasn't been in the recording industry for all that time, at least, not at at technical level. Otherwise the (claimed) job history might not include this: See this post.

 
"Programming Engineer" is potentially quite a broad term but as it includes the word "engineer", that indicates at the very least a basic understanding of the actual fundamental principles of engineering, plus he has mentioned his "audio engineering mentors" and further still, that he is privvy to industry secrets of mastering engineering. However, several of the "facts" he's stated are completely devoid of even the most basic understanding of digital audio. If there's even a shred of truth in his claim to being in the recording industry for 25 years, it's difficult to imagine what role he he has fulfilled. As you (and I) say, it can't be a technical role but even if he'd just been on say the retailing/marketing side of the industry, you'd have thought that after 25 years he'd have picked up at least some understanding of the fundamental basics of digital audio. It's all rather bizarre and the most obvious conclusion is that he's just making it all up!
 
G

 

[pinnahertz]

   
"Programming Engineer" is potentially quite a broad term but as it includes the word "engineer", that indicates at the very least a basic understanding of the actual fundamental principles of engineering, plus he has mentioned his "audio engineering mentors" and further still, that he is privvy to industry secrets of mastering engineering. However, several of the "facts" he's stated are completely devoid of even the most basic understanding of digital audio. If there's even a shred of truth in his claim to being in the recording industry for 25 years, it's difficult to imagine what role he he has fulfilled. As you (and I) say, it can't be a technical role but even if he'd just been on say the retailing/marketing side of the industry, you'd have thought that after 25 years he'd have picked up at least some understanding of the fundamental basics of digital audio. It's all rather bizarre and the most obvious conclusion is that he's just making it all up!
 
G

In radio, particularly in the US, there are certain clearly defined and universal job titles and departments.  In the Programming department, you have the Program Director and Music Director.  Their subordinates would be disc jockeys, announcers, part-time board operators, and production personnel.  The Music Director generally has no subordinates, and functions under the Program Director.  The Engineering Department is headed by the Chief Engineer (or Director of Engineering), who may have one or more engineers below him, but often is a solitary position.  The Engineering Department may in certain situations encompass production personnel and on-air board operators, and IT positions.  Other departments are Sales, Promotions, Traffic (handles scheduling and billing of paid announcements), and management.  The Program Director dictates the overall character of the station along with the details of how things are presented on-air.  The Music Director creates a music log (if music is tightly scheduled, and it usually is) for the entire day, Traffic creates a schedule for announcements, and the two logs are merged (often using the same software) to create the final program log from which each every element is listed along with scheduled and actual air time, which then becomes the legal document from which the station is operated.  
 
There is no universally accepted position titled "Programming Engineer".  The very title spans two different departments that while working together for the station are often found to be internally opposite in their politics, interests and function.  It's an odd and uncommon title that sounds a lot like one made up by someone who hasn't actually worked in radio.  The variable would be the use of the title outside the US, Canada and the UK.  There are sometimes "Production Engineers" who record locally produced spots and promotional pieces, and load elements into the computer system used for on-air playback.  However, though the title as a separate job exists at some of the larger stations, in the greater majority of stations that job is part of an on-air talent's responsibilities (besides an air-shift), with the total work load being dispersed among the three main air-shifts.  In the very largest of operations there may be a creative position that handles the development of imaging pieces, production elements, and promotional segments.  He's part of the programming department, and not an engineer. 
 
But again, there is no such title as "Programming Engineer" in common use. 

 

[drtechno]

On velvet jobs it was: "Full-time Programming Position - KILT-FM (The Bull) CBS Radio Houston"
 
but at the station they called it "programming engineer" It involved setting up the playlists and recording news and production of local commercials and when the guys are out on remotes.

 

[pinnahertz]

  On velvet jobs it was: "Full-time Programming Position - KILT-FM (The Bull) CBS Radio Houston"
 
but at the station they called it "programming engineer" It involved setting up the playlists and recording news and production of local commercials and when the guys are out on remotes.

I'm having a "these kids today" moment...but there's no such position unless the station HR folks made it up.  Which they may have, or errantly and casually made that reference. 

 

[castleofargh]

job descriptions can be tricky. I've been a train engineer, yet I was neither a train, nor an engineer.