Re: [ARSCLIST] Loudness, was Libraries disposing of records

[Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well said !!

..would that we have the choice.... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Parker Dinkins
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 7:42 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Loudness, was Libraries disposing of records

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