So everybody really thinks Terry is just making all of this up? This begs the question - What is his motive? I can see no personal gain to be made from such a claim and I doubt that someone would make all of this up just for fun. So if what he said is BS, why would he say it?

....

Attached files

If I had to make a wild guess:

Originally posted by Terry G:
Very documented..of course, the imformation is on a consultant basis for hire, as I do not give it out for free...and shouldn't

I worked obtaining it, compensation will be due.

Of course, if I'm wrong, that's a mighty big disservice I'm doing the man. In that case, my apologies.

Originally posted by Brad Blackwood:

Originally posted by David French:
So everybody really thinks Terry is just making all of this up? This begs the question - What is his motive? I can see no personal gain to be made from such a claim and I doubt that someone would make all of this up just for fun. So if what he said is BS, why would he say it?

Who cares? I mean, does it matter?

You can test it for yourself, easily... If i were to venture a guess - it would be that Terry cares. I know i would if it were me.

Some people listen to things and don't hear the subtle differences that may come out if one tests with equipment.

I know for a fact that my hearing is damaged - thus if i want accuracy - i use equipment to measure - and also verify the calibration of that equipment.

I also tend to believe that people can test the same things and arrive at different conclusions without being "BS" or lying.

I always take people at face value - and if i find documentation that proves them wrong - assume the error was an honest one till i find out personally that it was different.

I would then provide them with the source of the documentation that i had so they could examine it.

I see the flames in here climbing higher..... and would believe that this place is a place where we can climb above that. It's one of the reasons i joined it in the 1st place.

Happy Hunting

Rod

....

Wait... Who is Bill?

Edit: Nevermind. I found my answer. Suffice to say I'm stepping waaaaay back out of any conflicts of interest that might crop up. I got half the answers I want, and I'm happy enough.

Attached files

Edit: I really need to stop double posting

The only thing that makes sense about a level change would be if you are going through a DA conversion somewhere in the chain. Or possible some other preference that is set incorrectly. But that is reaaaaaally stretching it.

Brad,

My goal in asking why he would make it up is to bring to light the possibility that he is not trying to dazzle us with BS; rather, he truly does believe this and is not just making up lies as a surprising number of people have assumed.

Rod,

Word.

I think it is a crock too!
I do some work on backing tracks and everyone who hears them can't believe how much louder my tracks are than theirs. Simple, it's the way they are processed, pure and simple!
If I burn a copy on my so called crappy LG in my old DEll it sounds the same volume as if I burn it in the studio.
Crap in crap out, never has been any different never will be.
Ethan, on the slammer site images. Is slammer killing the peaks to achive its stuff? That's what it looks like in the diagrams.
If so what about the peaks in those regions, are they gone?
Larry

omegaarts,

Peak Slammer works by examining each half-cycle individually (from zero crossing to zero crossing). If a given half-cycle exceeds the threshold, it is simply scaled down, that is, the whole thing is turned down in volume uniformly. This way, you have no clipping distortion.

I'm going to give this Slammer a trail run. Sounds interesting.
Let me get this right again ..it doesn't kill the peaks it just turns down a paticular region to give room for an end to end volume boost. Is this correct?
I'm faily dense this time of day, whether I'm just going to bed or just getting up.
Humor an old man!
Larry

..it doesn't kill the peaks it just turns down a paticular region to give room for an end to end volume boost.

Yeah. That's exactly what it does. I tried it, and to me it sounds as good as the L2 prima facie.

Attached files

....

I would like to as a question here: why is everyone so obsessed with loud sounding cds? Does louder = better? Hardly!!! As a matter of fact it sounds in many cases worse to my ears. So many commercial cds sound now like if they were canned fish. With digital recording there is not really a noise issue so what's the big deal if we had to turn that knob up a bit on the amplifier to get to the same volume? I bet it would sound much better cause it wouldn't be so compressed. I think it's all labels that make us have louder sounding cds than our competition....just my 2 cents.

tnx,

chris

Attached files

Hey Chris,

Yeah, I definitely agree, as will just about everybody else here, that most of the pop CDs from the last five years or so sound pretty bad due to overcompression, but due to Fletcher/Munson, a louder song will appear to have more bass and more highs, and will thus sound 'better', which basically forces all of us to srive for a comparatively loud master. People are much too lazy to turn up their volume knobs.

People are much too lazy to turn up their volume knobs

That is so true! I am one of them !!! hehe... :)

Attached files

It is a problem - but if someone listens to a particular type of music - they do not want to be switching their volume after every song - that i think is the big issue - so if i want to compete in the market place - i have to do whatever it is that the major lables do......

I don't like the volumes myself - or the distortion that sometimes accompanies it - but i do want to be listened to

Happy Hunting

Rod

If someone can't take the time to turn up the volume knob on one of my projects then I hope they don't bother to even listen. I really don't care if they listen or not, I want them to care if they listen or not.
I'm not gonna squash a song flat to appease the restless natives!

Skill and experience are what I'm not seeing enough in this thread. There isn't a plugin or program that can replace this. Combine this with great equipment and you can make a good sounding loud CD. There is a belief out there that louder is better, I'm faced with this everyday as with most of us and that's why this thread as well as others are hot topics. there are many factors in determining how loud you can make it and still sound good but the most important is skill and experience during the entire process of making the record.

Stumbled upon an interesting mailbag-cum-article by Bob Katz... forgive me if I'm beating on a dead horse and/or you people have read this a million times. ;)

http://www.digido.com/index/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=19/

Edit: Seems the link doesn't go directly to the page I was looking at - The "jitter" link was the one I was referring to.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:

Originally posted by Terry G: a.k.a; Bill Roberts.

Geeezee you folks need to be scientists, not paper chasers.

Realum, Not a word. What does it mean in "Billspeak"?
unrefutable, once again, not a real word.
possible, misspelled
imformation, misspelled
COMPATABILITY, misspelled
unrefutable, once again, not a real word.
purposly, misspelled
gerneralized, misspelled or once again, not a real word.

Now I know it isn't usually Kosher to call to the attention of the group to misspellings but this is from a person who is claiming to be a scientist. ???? :confused: ????
This is an old fashioned technique called, "Dazzle them with Bullsh*t". Old as the hills. I for one am not impressed with the "word salad ramblings" of someone who can't even get the spellchecker on his computer to work. Kurt, I have never seen a so called "moderator" with such a piss-poor attitude as yourself on ANY of the audio/music related forums on the net. Instead of addressing the meat and potato issue at hand here regarding Terry G's (Bill's) post, you choose to address spelling errors as if they define the content of his character, or gauge Terry's intelligence and experience. Regardless of the past, I think it is most rude and childish to continue this line of behavior and responses, REGARDLESS of your interests in R.O. I have also noticed how you or Chris B. (I have forgot..I have the entire account saved F.Y.I.) had the unmitigated audacity to actually type in a change in a quote by Bill Roberts about 3 months ago by seriously changing the verbiage and completely...and cowardly... change the nature of his post with "adjusting" his quote to suit you and turn other forum members against Bill regarding the particular issue at that time (about 3 months ago) I know you know JUST what I am talking about, eh? He has a right to be pissed, big time. Lay back, my friend. You have much to offer, but even more to lose amongst the audio community at large That's my "dazzling BS salad" for you. As my dad used to say, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be NICE."
Respectfully, Lee Tyler

Originally posted by falkon2:
The "jitter"

:) Hey Falcon! What are you using for a master clock? I am very interested in the improvements made with "super clocks." In fact, I am a bit hesitant to do any serious tracking until I find out more. So far I have looked at the "Big Ben" from Apogee. Anything else out there?

--Rick

1) Whoa... talk about a topic revivfy!

2) Never used any clocks. I never even realized that there was a need for such things - Before the start of this year I thought that all recording was done on computers. (Don't laugh. I didn't even know the difference between a condenser and dynamic mic). As it is now, I have a laptop, and that's THE only piece of equipment I use to do my audio - I get the recorded .wavs, dump them to CD-R or HD, then work on the laptop entirely through headphones, bounce out submixes back out, and finalize the mix on a better system.

Opus seems to like the Big Ben (but of course. ;) ), so I suppose it would be quite a reliable piece of hardware.

PeakSlammer is just a crappy brickwall. If you want your audio to look like a rectangle of blue with distortion artifacts go for it. Rip a commercial cd track that has been mastered and maximized for levels... it doesn't look like a brick of cheese.

From what I read on the Scrollworks site, PeakSlammer isn't a limiter at all. And have you ever ripped 'La Vida Loca', 'Bye Bye Bye', or anything by Ted Jensen? ;)

Actually, Peakslammer *IS* a brickwall *WITHOUT* the distortion characteristics inherent in normal limiting, since it is digital and sample-precise. (Or should I say, half-cycle-precise)

The link a few posts back to all the Bob Katz stuff is great. I found it a few months ago and it really helped understand alot of what is being talked about here.

This is what I have learned....
As I have gotten better at recording and mixing I notice that my mix levels are getting closer to commericial releases. My meters dont jump around as much and I seem to get more and more headroom. I just finished a mix that has the lowest meter readings I ever saw but, the cd is as loud as comparable cds and the dymanics are the best I've ever had. I dont rely on meters for much any more, but that is what I have observed.

I have found that perceived loudness is what its all about. A lot of compression doesnt seem to work for me, but KORN seems to use alot of it very nicely. I find that precise EQ adjustments in the low mids can add percieved loudness, and the same is true for the high mids. And what about this, which gives a louder perception.... all the inst playing as loud as they can from start to finish or, dynamics? I like to tell people that a song has to relate to its self. If the whole thing is one volume then the listener has no reference of less. So the percieved loudness will plane out after the first hit. But if you give the listener some hard hits, then back off, then then hit a little harder than at the first, then back off just a little and then build to the hardest hits.... reguardless of relative level you should effect the listener more.

Also...
I think everything, even the max volume of your final mix, is determined when the music is recorded. If you record with your preamp gain settings too hot, your mix wont breathe right and your meters will all get red before it gets loud enough, if you record with your gains to low your mix wont ever get big enough, it might get loud, but it wont seem to jump out of the speakers.

So here is my point....
way to loud, way to soft, overcomped, no comp....
If the song takes the listener on a journey who can argue with any of it?

Wait, what does this have to do with cd burners eating 2 db?

DOAH! P