See Bob Katz' K-20:
http://www.digido.com/how-to-make-better-recordings-part-2.html
Regards,
Andrew Levine
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130924/7cd3e952/attachment.html
Andrew Levine wrote:
See Bob Katz' K-20:
http://www.digido.com/how-to-make-better-recordings-part-2.html
Thanks for the link, looks interesting, though I haven't had time to
read properly yet.
Accepting the above may give insight into my query, just to be clear I
am not a producer in
While -16.9 might keep you safe, a better option might be -20 dBFS. Gives some
headroom in case you need it. Also, many consumer playback devices may not
handle full scale output.
On Sep 23, 2013, at 11:00 AM, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
Send Sursound mailing list submissions to
Ken Landers wrote:
While -16.9 might keep you safe, a better option might be -20 dBFS.
Gives some headroom in case you need it. Also, many consumer
playback devices may not handle full scale output.
Interesting, I am not a producer of anything as such, but do see that a
lot of digital music
In years past, a number of systems has issues with intra-sample peaks. While a
technical 0 dBFS cleared, the interpolated level between the peaks would cause
distortion. From a best practices for broadcast point of view, my colleagues
and I have just tried to steer clear of any overs,
