On 02/29/2016 03:02 PM, Cowboy wrote:
Especially with music cuts, this old dog with 40+ years background
in "show biz" doesn't see how anyone in their right mind could ever
even harbor a possibility that each and every cut would NOT be listened
to, massaged, and polished to perfection BEFORE being added to the
final "ON THE AIR" play-out, whatever that is.
To do anything less is negligent.
well actually our music cuts are imported in an "off air" group, then i
go through each of them to :
- check it is what it should be and suffered no corruption of any kind
- set tags (mood, energy, genre, in/out abruptness)
- set start/end/segue markers (the latter of which are set precisely so
that transitions occur tightly "in rythm/on beat", or let the song
breathe a little or whatever timing is appropriate for that particular
song to fit in the flow)
- move it into one of the "on air" music group
And when i do that, the cuts are already all at the same perceived
level. That compensates the difference between that soft folk song and
this overly compressed and loud garage rock.
I don't see why i would not want that. There is no way my ears can be a
trustful reference so that manually set levels are constantly
appropriate over a period of many years and a collection of thousands of
cuts.
I don't see either why i should do any edit to the tracks, like changes
in EQ or dynamics ? Even if i often would prefer that record labels send
us much less compressed/limited/noise-rectangle tracks, it's not my role
to interfere with the mixer/producer/artist's choices in doing such
modifications.
I understand and do make sure that any king of program that is not music
must be finely crafted before going on air. But, music tracks have
already been refined by all the people involved in the making of it.
If the song sounds really too bad it's not aired, that's it.
Do i miss something ?
Our operation (like many other community stations this old side of the
ocean) has a tight budget and limited human time (weeks lasting only
168h). That's why i let computer do everything that i feel does not need
human intervention, ie. most data manutention.
I'm all for making things artisanal, having programming fluctuate
depending on seasons and avoiding cold-blind automation, but i don't
feel i give up anything in my process (might be wrong though).
Plus we air lots of different songs in vastly different styles, so there
is no attempt nor intent to make them sound similar (if that is the
purpose of editing music cuts before airing ?)
Even if the on-air processor adds a bit of "glue" and homogeneity, it's
not set drastically, there's a subtle compromise between respecting
original source, getting coverage, avoiding listener fatigue, providing
intelligibility / confort, etc. It's not carved in stone either, and is
adjusted (mostly towards "less") a few times a year.
I am getting slightly off topic but i am genuinely interested in sharing
points of view there. I might learn some things.
Anyway, good to hear that is being there eventually.
I said it made the wish-list, not the to-do list !
There's a difference.
That difference amounts to *if* someone writes the code in a way that
doesn't break anything else now existing or planed, it will be considered
for inclusion.
Otherwise, don't hold your breath.
The exception would be $$.
There is nothing in the universe that can't be made to happen given
enough time, money, or real estate. Pick any two.
Well i'm perfectly aware of that.
Better on the wish list than nowhere, though :)
_______________________________________________
Rivendell-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://caspian.paravelsystems.com/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
