[ARSCLIST] Loudness, was Libraries disposing of records

[Parker Dinkins <parker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 1/6/07 6:20 PM US/Central, Tom Fine at tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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