Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.5
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2007)Back to main ARSCLIST pageJoin or leave ARSCLISTReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:         Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:42:21 -0600
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Parker Dinkins <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Loudness, was Libraries disposing of records
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <001201c731f1$a58e8a50$6a01a8c0@TOMOFFICE>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

on 1/6/07 6:20 PM US/Central, Tom Fine at [log in to unmask] wrote: > Bob Orban, the inventor of most of what is used on way out of an FM control > room today, wrote a detailed analysis of what radio stations should DEMAND an > end to the "wars" (see link below). Unfortunately, the same breed of tool runs > a typical ClearChannel region as runs a typical Big Music A&R department > today. We actually had an Orban Optimod-FM 8400 pre-Katrina, and it is an amazing tool for what it does. The internal sample rate is 32kHz, which allows for more processing cycles (since Nyquist limits the top end at 15-16kHz, it's no big deal for FM). Unlike much mastering software, the 8400 can't be implemented with today's plugin technology. There's simply too much going on inside the box. And there are many different presets - plus, the Optimod is highly customizable. There are (suggested) presets for sports events, classical music, urban soul, etc. We specifically bought the Optimod to demonstrate what various radio stations might do to mastered CDs. In dealing with self-produced CDs (which we do) we wanted a way to show the client the dangers (and the futility) inherent in pursuing loudness during mastering for its own sake. When a person produces their own CD, they're not often very objective. In fact, with a deliberate bit of hyperbole (hope this doesn't offend anyone), I can say that many people think their music is a cure for cancer or AIDS. It can be a very delicate subject to ask someone who has produced their own CD to live with a lower level than the Red Hot whatever. We have been mastering from the beginning of the CD loudness war, up until today. Since we did a lot of jazz, raw levels weren't usually an issue in the past (there were many others, though). But today, the semi-standard trick at the top labels for rock is to use an A/D converter as the limiter. Mastering for CDs uses equipment that is pretty different, but perhaps no less exotic in its own way. For example, you will find parallel compression in mastering, but probably not in broadcasting. Likewise, broadcasting spreads the leading edge of transients (ok, what's left of them) into a wider stereo image, but you probably wouldn't see that in mastering. The point is that the two fields use very different tools. Maybe it's just my perspective, but I'd rather have a smashed radio broadcast than a smashed CD. At least then I could buy the CD, and have a chance to enjoy the music. Radio has indeed contributed to the problem, but with different tools and different implications. -- Parker Dinkins MasterDigital Corporation Audio Restoration + CD Mastering http://masterdigital.com


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main ARSCLIST page

LISTSERV.LOC.GOV CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager