Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Fwd: [Jamin] Re: soft clip: Achieving Gain, inconsequential overloads
From: Mark Knecht (markknecht_AT_comcast.net)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 20:57:21 EEST
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 10:34, davidrclark_AT_earthlink.net wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > You know, in all of my time spent messing with Pro Tools, and being
> > involved in the forums where a lot of us have shared our music for
> > critical comment, the only comment I've EVER heard about my mixes not
> > being loud enough is that people don't want to be bothered dealing with
> > the volume control on their system.
>
> So why doesn't the volume go to the average? Or why doesn't everybody turn
> their volumes DOWN instead of UP? You can't explain that by what you just
> said. Something else is going on. That something else tends to favor
> louder.
No, in my experience it doesn't favor louder always. It favors
consistency. People in the music forums I frequent most don't like mixes
that are specifically louder than average any more than they favor mixes
that are softer than average. Generally they want them consistently
loud.
Other than the Fletcher-Munson curves, which I don't think come into
play in this specific conversation, what bothers people that I interact
with is inconsistency.
As I said before, if I do a mix which is too soft (inconsistent) by
10db, and I do another mix that is not too soft or too loud, no one has
ever told me that the louder one sounds better than the soft one when
the soft one is turned up. That's just my experience.
I do agree that many mixes seen to be louder than they need to be. The
example about Rush in the paper that started this conversation had
pictures of how volumes have grown over the years. I do not for a second
think that this has all happened because the best producers were doing a
bad job 15-20 years ago. It's being driven by something else, most
typically being blamed on the radio industry.
I've mentioned before that the best recorded CD I've heard in years is
McCoy Tyner's 'New York Reunion'. It's a very 'soft', low volume CD.
However I don't listen to it at low volume. I turn it up to a consistent
volume, but the CD sounds better than others.
>
> Also, Ron Parker recently posted: "I have to admit the new loud master is
> better." Why is that?
Don't know. We need Ron to expouse on this. It's not my experience. I'd
guess it has something to do with the type of material.
>
> Now I myself have turned up my volumes considerably for exactly the reason
> you said: To match other volumes. But the explanation of why things tend up
> not down and not to an average MAY be a preference for more harmonics.
It very well may be. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that I've not
heard this argued in any other forum.
> Suppose someone turns up the volume for more harmonics.
But what harmonics? Where do these come from, and why? If I record a
violin correctly, why do people think they need more harmonics? Just a
strange hearing thing that tends to favor having them? Possible, but
also possibly black magic. I guess I'm too 'old school'! ;-)
> The rest of us
> come along and increase our volume to keep pace. The levels now are all
> the same. Someone turns up the volume again for more harmonics. The
> rest of use do the same, but merely to keep pace. And so on. We're part
> of the problem.
Yep, possibly we are.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue May 04 2004 - 20:57:09 EEST