mswlogo;542402 Wrote:
I was listening to some mp3's on our common server at work and really
liked one I had listened to a lot. So I bought the CD and ripped it to
FLAC. It sounded aweful. Then I asked my coworker to bring in his CD.
The one I bought was remastered as HDCD. Then I found out
On 01/05/10 05:16, mswlogo wrote:
I work with analog and digital signals at data rates that would make
your head spin.
Replies like yours are priceless.
I'm sorry that the clipping I'm referring to is beyond your grasp.
Ah, here we go, the my dick is bigger than your dick reply.
Final post on this thread for me:
take a 16/44.1 file into Audacity
make a copy, reduced by 6dB using Audacity's 24-bit level function
(this mirrors an SB acting on redbook audio)
diff the two
result: 6dB of white noise - exactly what theory predicts due to
reduction of SNR
keep going,
A few threads started immediately after the release of 7.5 about
problems with playing apple lossless files. Apparently a shift to (or
away from - my head was starting to hurt following these threads) a
utility named faad has changed the way apple lossless is processed by
SBS.
I tried to
Here is an example of a well Mixed Recording. It is one of my standards
I always use when evaluating systems.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Kenny_Neal_What_You_Got_Full.jpg
But if you look close it's CLIPPED. Will you hear this tiny bit of
clipping never. The more I look at good
Phil Leigh;542594 Wrote:
Final post on this thread for me:
take a 16/44.1 file into Audacity
make a copy, reduced by 6dB using Audacity's 24-bit level function
(this mirrors an SB acting on redbook audio)
diff the two
result: 6dB of white noise - exactly what theory predicts due to
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a well Mixed Recording. It is one of my standards
I always use when evaluating systems.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Kenny_Neal_What_You_Got_Full.jpg
But if you look close it's CLIPPED. Will you hear this tiny bit of
clipping,
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a poor mix. Way too much headroom over 6dB.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Beach_Boys_Lonely_Sea.jpg
A far far better looking waveform than your reference recording. The
only problem is that it peaks too low. If it peaked at 0db that
On 02/05/10 16:35, mswlogo wrote:
Here is an example of a well Mixed Recording. It is one of my standards
I always use when evaluating systems.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Kenny_Neal_What_You_Got_Full.jpg
Hmm, we obviously have different ideas of well-mixed; it's certainly
On 02/05/10 17:47, darrenyeats wrote:
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a poor mix. Way too much headroom over 6dB.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Beach_Boys_Lonely_Sea.jpg
A far far better looking waveform than your reference recording. The
only problem is that it
Robin Bowes;542657 Wrote:
- Hurt from American IV by Johnny Cash
Um...that one is compressed to the point of distortion near the end.
It's so obvious I'm guessing it was intentional. Maybe you like that
but that ending is not a good example for dynamic range IMO.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
On 02/05/10 18:37, darrenyeats wrote:
Robin Bowes;542657 Wrote:
- Hurt from American IV by Johnny Cash
Um...that one is compressed to the point of distortion near the end.
It's so obvious I'm guessing it was intentional. Maybe you like that
but that ending is not a good example for
darrenyeats;542645 Wrote:
We have very different ideas about what looks like a good recording in
Audacity. A good recording has very very few peaks at 0db, sometimes
just one peak. That is because in real life music doesn't have a
zillion peaks at exactly the same level. Neither does the
On 02/05/10 18:57, mswlogo wrote:
There is probably a few dozen of those clips in that EXCELLENT
recording. You can disagree on taste but it is an excellent recording.
I disagree - to my mind, it is most certainly *not* an excellent
recording. Nothing to do with taste - I actually like that
Robin Bowes wrote:
You understand what happens when you simply clip a peak, don't you? You
know about the high frequency content in square waves?
Robin, stop pulling you punches. The frequency bandwidth of a square
wave is infinite.
Even if one used a stupid high frequency sample rate, you are
On 02/05/10 19:25, Pat Farrell wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
You understand what happens when you simply clip a peak, don't you? You
know about the high frequency content in square waves?
Robin, stop pulling you punches. The frequency bandwidth of a square
wave is infinite.
Even if one used
Robin Bowes;542669 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 18:57, mswlogo wrote:
There is probably a few dozen of those clips in that EXCELLENT
recording. You can disagree on taste but it is an excellent
recording.
I disagree - to my mind, it is most certainly *not* an excellent
recording. Nothing to do
Robin Bowes;542660 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 17:47, darrenyeats wrote:
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a poor mix. Way too much headroom over 6dB.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Beach_Boys_Lonely_Sea.jpg
A far far better looking waveform than your reference
mswlogo wrote:
You guys are clueless.
Now you resort to personal insults. That lowers your SeanTrollScale to
0/10
You are still a troll
Do not feed the trolls.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
audiophiles mailing list
Curiously he appears to be having the same conversation elsewhere...
http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflatNumber=117190#Post117190
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
On 02/05/10 20:00, mswlogo wrote:
Ok, here is 30secs of this terrible recording.
I didn't say it was a terrible recording, I said it was not a good
recording.
Let me know which samples you hear that clipped.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/a%20terrible%20recording.zip
No need
On 02/05/10 20:20, mswlogo wrote:
Yeah modern studio's like Telarc compress the crap out of everything.
http://www.amazon.com/What-You-Kenny-Neal-Noel/dp/B4SGR7
I can't speak about other Telarc recordings that I have not heard, and I
know that some of their classical recordings that I
Robin Bowes;542702 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 20:20, mswlogo wrote:
Yeah modern studio's like Telarc compress the crap out of
everything.
http://www.amazon.com/What-You-Kenny-Neal-Noel/dp/B4SGR7
I can't speak about other Telarc recordings that I have not heard, and
I
know that some
mswlogo;542703 Wrote:
But it's not over compressed and the clipping is essentially non
existent.
By which you mean the clipping exists.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
mswlogo;542703 Wrote:
But it's not over compressed and the clipping is essentially non
existent.
By which you mean the clipping exists.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
andynormancx;542696 Wrote:
Curiously he appears to be having the same conversation elsewhere...
http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflatNumber=117190#Post117190
You found my signature !!
I run that site and you can see the tone of the replies as well.
You
andynormancx;542704 Wrote:
By which you mean the clipping exists.
Yes that track has clipping. It's too small to even consider
attenuating or compressing to get rid of it. You'd do more harm than
good if you got rid of it. There are other ways to get rid of too. But
it's total nonsense to
On 02/05/10 21:10, mswlogo wrote:
That album is not over compressed.
Again, I didn't say it was over-compressed - I said it had a lot of
compression, which it does.
It's a bold track no doubt and it may not be your cup o tea.
I'm not commenting on the musical content, merely the sound. As
mswlogo;542705 Wrote:
This is on $10K to $300K systems.
I'm afraid I am naturally suspicious of the judgement of anyone who has
spent $300K on a hifi setup.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
mswlogo;542681 Wrote:
Ok, here is 30secs of this terrible recording.
Let me know which samples you hear that clipped.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/a%20terrible%20recording.zip
I hope the performer does not shoot me but I suspect after some folks
hear even this short
On 02/05/10 22:29, mlsstl wrote:
Tell me again what's getting lost in the mud at -80 and -90 dB?
You mean you can't hear the marching band at 0:19 - 0:25 ?? ;)
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
mlsstl;542726 Wrote:
I downloaded the clip and took a look at it in Adobe Audition. The track
I looked at showed no clipping at all. The highest peak was -0.19 dB. Of
course that could have been dynamically limited during the recording,
mixing or mastering process, but there is more than one
Robin Bowes;542731 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 22:29, mlsstl wrote:
Tell me again what's getting lost in the mud at -80 and -90 dB?
You mean you can't hear the marching band at 0:19 - 0:25 ?? ;)
R.
When you don't have a good technical explanation this what people
resort to.
Brahms and
mswlogo;542736 Wrote:
You spent too much, so you must be idiot?
That isn't what I said at all. There are plenty of very bright people
who lose all sense of judgement when it comes to expensive hi-fi.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID
On 02/05/10 23:08, mswlogo wrote:
When you don't have a good technical explanation this what people
resort to.
Brahms and Marching bands in the same cut.
What do you do for work?
You're not a musician are you?
You spent too much, so you must be idiot?
I'm waiting for the spelling
Robin Bowes;542749 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 23:08, mswlogo wrote:
When you don't have a good technical explanation this what people
resort to.
Brahms and Marching bands in the same cut.
What do you do for work?
You're not a musician are you?
You spent too much, so you must
On 02/05/10 23:53, mswlogo wrote:
As I have defended myself the insults go up.
So now you're saying the example I gave isn't clipping?
You will recall that I have said previously:
... or you're possibly using the term incorrectly.
I believe you are using the term incorrectly. There is a
Here is another famous tune. This is the remastered version.
I know, I know, it's Hardlimited, Overcompressed crap.
Red lines show clipping. I could find 100 tunes easily of good
recordings that are not over compressed (which actually has nothing to
do with clipping).
On 03/05/10 00:32, mswlogo wrote:
Here is another famous tune. This is the remastered version.
I know, I know, it's Hardlimited, Overcompressed crap.
Red lines show clipping. I could find 100 tunes easily of good
recordings that are not over compressed (which actually has nothing to
do
Robin Bowes;542757 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 23:53, mswlogo wrote:
As I have defended myself the insults go up.
So now you're saying the example I gave isn't clipping?
You will recall that I have said previously:
... or you're possibly using the term incorrectly.
I believe you are
mswlogo;542665 Wrote:
So you're saying you'd sacrifice some dynamic range for 1 peak, one
sample wide.
If you believe your reference track has been limited in respect of just
one sample then fine but if you want to know what I'm saying read my
earlier posts.
--
darrenyeats
On 03/05/10 00:39, mswlogo wrote:
In the correction I said your not actually getting more dynamic range
but your better fitting the data to the window of dynamic range you
have by letting it clip a little.
Yes, so you're actually *reducing* dynamic range.
If folks are using The Knob I
Replying through the forum to catch your edits...
mswlogo;542762 Wrote:
Now your playing games with calling it compression to cover your back
side. That is total B.S. It's not compressed, it's not hard limited it
has inaudible minor clipping and it sounds great on my system.
You really
robinbowes;542771 Wrote:
Replying through the forum to catch your edits...
You really believe that track is not compressed? Yes, it may sound
great, but it is most definitely compressed.
And I, in common with pretty much every one else who has replied on
here, believe you're wrong
mswlogo;542735 Wrote:
I just verified it with two well respected tools and that clip is
clipped.
Whatever.
I always thought Adobe Audition was a pretty respectable program, but
I'm really not the one who's in the middle of the clipping debate.
My question was about the quiet end of the
mlsstl;542775 Wrote:
Why does material need to be clipped (or run close to clipping) for a
track that, for practical purposes, has 20 or 30 dB worth of dynamic
range?
That's the subject of a whole different discussion! The insane
loudness war's that seem to prevail the mixing studio's these
Robin Bowes;542768 Wrote:
On 03/05/10 00:39, mswlogo wrote:
In the correction I said your not actually getting more dynamic
range
but your better fitting the data to the window of dynamic range you
have by letting it clip a little.
Yes, so you're actually *reducing* dynamic range.
I looked at that first test one more time.
It is 50% of the dB scale.
They end up with 72dB dynamic range at Volume of 20.
Take a 16bit word inside 20bits and shift it 8 bits to the right
(that's 48dB - 1/2 the log scale).
Now you have 12bits (you lost 4 bits because it's not really a 24bit
I didn't want to edit my post since some are using RSS etc.
I'm referring to this test. Good test by the way.
http://mysite.verizon.net/forumwebspace/RightMark/Test%20Reports/Volume.htm
Look at Volume 30. That is the same as Volume 75 today.
That's about 24dB attenuation (they mark as 75%).
I didn't want to edit my post since some are using RSS etc.
I'm referring to this test. Good test by the way.
http://mysite.verizon.net/forumwebspace/RightMark/Test%20Reports/Volume.htm
Look at Volume 30. That is the same as Volume 75 today.
That's about 24dB attenuation (they mark as 75%).
DCtoDaylight;542776 Wrote:
There's no excuse for, or need of, digital clipping with the resolution
of today's gear, yet sadly, it's not uncommon. I've got DVD-Audio
disks with clipping, even with their 24 bit capability. Sad, sad,
sad...Please could you share the titles so that I can avoid
51 matches
Mail list logo
