Grand 12-Inches 5

[Dayna]

I say BRAVO any way you slice it..
you cant lose with these songs period..
and I also am salivating over the Andy Williams Track.:icon_biggrin:.
Thank you

[QUINNY]

Hard, soft or minor digital clipping is just not acceptable and I really can't take anyone seriously if they think that digital clipping is OK, I just don’t think it’s a professional way to work with digital audio.

I've often been told I have Bat ears by other engineers and musicians (i.e. I can hear things that they can't) and yet I'd still have to reiterate that 0dB digital can be exceeded without the 'dire' consequences you seem fixated about.

Whether manufacturers deliberately set their meters slightly on the exaggerated side of where they should be, is neither here or nor there, its still not an excuse for driving the signal past the maximum possible level, any pro should have additional metering or be taking precaution to stop it from clipping in the first place.

In an ideal world where all pros are paid reasonable money that would undoubtedly be the case. I doubt many studios actually get the proper return on their investment in recording equipment and so not everyone would necessarily have the extra metering.

If you have DATs form back in the day and for whatever reason they are clipped and sound acceptable to you that's not really an excuse for applying it to modern day digital audio and suggesting that clipping is OK.

Why not? The carriers may be different, but the theory (as you've so eloquently described) is the same and by your own admission, the gear is actually better nowadays.

As for level to not exceed -0.03dB,

Why stop at -0.03 dB, why not push it to -0.00003dB. What's three hundredths of a dB among friends? Personally, my levels were set to -0.1 dB, once I had my TC finalizer, Studiospares - TC FINALIZER PLUS 96K but it would have allowed me to go to 0dB, if I so desired and I betcha none of the masters would have been rejected (speaking as someone who had something like 5-600 CD titles manufactured over the years).

I played some of my vinyl transfers over a loud Disco set up last night, ones that have been put through my TC Finalizer and are therefore squashed (clipped due to pushing levels and limiting to -0.1 dB) and you know something, they sounded just fine (when compared to all the other tracks played that came from master tape sources and for being a vinyl transfer). I listen to them over my Sennheiser HD 580 precision headphones Stereophile: Sennheiser HD-580 headphones
and they sound just fine, so long as the disc they're taken from was in fairly good nick.

it's true that the only way to ensure that 0dB is never passed is obviously to limit the signal some how, but if I limit a file to 0dB and send it off to a CD pressing plant, and if this file has peaks that hit 0dB for more than a few milliseconds the CD pressing plant may reject the file on the assumption that those peaks represent distortion.

In which case, I'll never know how any CDs were ever released in the first 10 years or how some of today's grungier bands ever get their CDs pressed. I have plenty of CD tracks that exceed 0dB digital, don't you? Some of them do sound bloody awful, but that's probably down to there being a dynamic range of 2 dB at best.

Theory and practice are two things that don't necessarily agree.

In theory a microphone should record a signal with fairly good regard to dynamic range, especially top end condensers with a very low noise floor of their own. In practice they never come close. That's why compressors are brought into play, because the dynamic range they represent is nothing like what the human ear hears. As someone who did many choral recordings, using Earthworks QTC1s Earthworks - QTC 40 - 4 to 40khz Omni
and Soundfield microphones, SoundField: MKV Studio Microphone System
I can attest to this. OK the Earthworks aren't known for a particularly low noise floor, but they are spectacular microphones none the less. With all my choral recordings, I had to gently compress the master tape, otherwise the quiet pieces were too quiet and the loudest crescendos would have taken the meters off the scale. I never had anyone ever say to me "that sounds clipped/distorted" or, " the dynamics aren't right" and they could be some ultra fussy people. One of the main arguments I'd have with the purists (who never compress anything and just let the low levels find their own space among the everyday noise) was centered on this. I'm sorry, but listening to a piece of music where I have to strain to hear some of it, isn't my idea of perfection.

[paul]

What amazes me with this discussion of clipping, limiting, and compression is the fact that cd technology allows for a dynamic range of 96 dB. Boys and girls, that's a lot of room for most music. Unless you are recording stuff like the 1812 Overture with cannon blasts and all, I'm amazed that recordings are made in the manner Quinny for example has described.

I have audiophile recordings that avoid that issue but I fail to understand why for example, mass market recordings can't be done with max levels set at -10 dB. That still gives over 80 db of range for recordings.

[QUINNY]

What amazes me with this discussion of clipping, limiting, and compression is the fact that cd technology allows for a dynamic range of 96 dB. Boys and girls, that's a lot of room for most music. Unless you are recording stuff like the 1812 Overture with cannon blasts and all, I'm amazed that recordings are made in the manner Quinny for example has described.

I have audiophile recordings that avoid that issue but I fail to understand why for example, mass market recordings can't be done with max levels set at -10 dB. That still gives over 80 db of range for recordings.

Don't know why you're so amazed Paul. That's how it's been done in popular music for years and years. The 80dB or 90dB (or 192dB, 32 bit) dynamic range sounds fine in theory and in theory the human ear does distinguish between different levels within that range (96 dB commonly accepted as the range of the human ear and steps of 3 dB noticeable), with amazing integrity. There is absolutely no point of limiting digital recordings (CD) to -10 dB, as no extra distortion occurs up to 0dB and the CD would be incredibly quiet, leading to playback issues, with possibly most people not able to get enough level out of their speakers to satisfy them.

None of us live in a world where we have a noise floor of 0dB surrounding us.
Urban Background (late night)40-50General Office or Supermarket60Car at 25mph (7.5m)70Heavy Goods Vehicle passing pavement90Pneumatic Drill (5m)100Loud Disco (1m from speakers)120
That's where the whole theory begins to implode. Also, there are very few microphones in the world that have a noise floor approaching that 0dB (in other words, no self made noise at all within their circuitry). Add noise generated within the mixer used, the cabling employed, the mains power supply (can be very dirty unless a smoothing transformer is used) and the recording world is far less than ideal. Same for the listening world too. Therefore, in all but the purest of pure recordings, steps have to be taken to make the listening experience worthwhile, from the average listener's point of view.

This is why audiophiles' points of view could be considered somewhat academic at times.

[QUINNY]

In the day before CD, it was 100% clear what a master was.
It was an analogue tape running at 38 or even 76 cm/s
containing a stereo pair of tracks. And the master had all needed info scribbled on the box (like it being a MASTER tape) and test tones preceding the actual recording to calibrate the tape recorders it was played on.

Ben: If you're still reading this thread. When presented with a proper master containing line up tones etc, do you tend to make a straight transfer, or do you tend to try and 'sweeten' the overall sound?

A purist would simply line the tones up, transfer and keep the integrity of the original engineer/producer intact. Is that necessarily the best thing to do, as in my experience, most masters could always do with a little tweaking here and there? What are your thoughts regarding EQ and noise reduction (even tape hiss can sound a tad annoying in this modern digital age)?

Despite what Graham says in regard to raising levels, I'd say there is a compromise to be met that satisfies both extremes of views. By using a very low compression rate (of 1.25:1 or 1.5 :1 for example), slow attack, fast release times through a high end mastering device, it is possible to raise levels considerably without ruining the overall sound. Even a few dB gained in this way will sound so much louder. Given that the average piece of vinyl has a dynamic range of 20-25 dB (BIG bloody deal!!!), and the overall levels of the track could be very, very high, what's the problem with raising levels from a master tape with a noise floor somewhere nearer -60 dB and less artefacts in the first place?

[BenLiebrand]

Ben: If you're still reading this thread. When presented with a proper master containing line up tones etc, do you tend to make a straight transfer, or do you tend to try and 'sweeten' the overall sound?

It depends on my experiences with the track.
Here are the options:

Preferred : A straight transfer. Tastes can differ and the real thing simply is the real thing! Besides, why fix it if it wasn't broken.

Adjust : If I always remember having to EQ it whilst DJ-ing, I'll probably try to include whatever it apparently was missing compared to "the rest".
Examples : Superfreak got the low end it deserved. Automat only got the proper low end of the bassdrum added, which it was always lacking previously. If a track contains a badly timed edit (which I remember messing up my live mixing), I'll correct it. And if a shaky tempo intro always prevented a smooth mix-in, I'll even correct that by checking every beat against exact timing.
Example : Frantique now has a rock-steady intro and break, same goes for Amii Stewarts' Knock on Wood intro and outro.

Levels : In not yet processed recordings, many sounds make up the cumulative levels and often result in just a few spots in the whole track where all ads up to reach maximum level. I'll check these few transients often less than a dozen, adjust those few ultimate peaks (by hand) after which I can raise the volume of the whole track by several dB's without having to compress, limit or alter the sound in any perceivable way. Works like a charm.

:) Ben

[QUINNY]

A different way of doing it and if it works for you...fine.

Of course, a relatively open sounding track with a good mid range will still sound loud compared to one where all the middle has been sucked out (UK records compared to US ones, almost to a tee).

So, do the US masters have a much different frequency characteristic to the European ones (they used NAB, whereas we tended to use IEC for EQ on tape decks)? I've never fully understood why US records have a much flatter sound, as the difference between NAB and IEC wasn't that pronounced and supposedly, every cutting engineer cut to the RIAA cuve using machines made by the same handful of manufacturers.

Do you have any deep seated reason for your compressorphobia?:icon_biggrin:

[ashley_k]

I've often been told I have Bat ears by other engineers and musicians (i.e. I can hear things that they can't) and yet I'd still have to reiterate that 0dB digital can be exceeded without the 'dire' consequences you seem fixated about.

I've never suggested the results would be "dire" or do I have a fixation about clipping, I have just explained the consequences of what can happen if you discard a basic limitation of digital audio by going over 0dB and clipping it, and the difference between digital clipping and analogue clipping.

In an ideal world where all pros are paid reasonable money that would undoubtedly be the case. I doubt many studios actually get the proper return on their investment in recording equipment and so not everyone would necessarily have the extra metering.

Whether studios have or can afford extra metering is still not an excuse for poor engineering and clipping audio, as I said they should take other precautions, like not pushing the level to far into the red in the first place, I'm guessing one of main reason why a pro studio could not afford to invest in better metering, would be a lack of clients prepared to use a studio that clips its recordings in the first place!

Why not? The carriers may be different, but the theory (as you've so eloquently described) is the same and by your own admission, the gear is actually better nowadays.

Why not? What! Are you kidding me - for what possible reason would you have for continuing to clipping audio in the same way you had been doing on old equipment with less than perfect metering, why would you do the same thing on modern equipment which has superior metering and better sound capabilities, this make no sense whatsoever.
I can see no good reason why you would want to carry over bad recording techniques to new/improved technology, the only reasons I can see for doing this would be that you actually like the sound of clipping audio, or you have absolutely no knowledge of how the recording process works and absolutely no engineering skills.
If you showed this kind of level of skill and flawed logic in a studio - I wouldn't even let you make the studio tea or send you down the shops for a packet of hobnobs (that's a kind of biscuit by the way).

Why stop at -0.03 dB, why not push it to -0.00003dB. What's three hundredths of a dB among friends? Personally, my levels were set to -0.1 dB, once I had my TC finalizer, Studiospares - TC FINALIZER PLUS 96K but it would have allowed me to go to 0dB, if I so desired and I betcha none of the masters would have been rejected (speaking as someone who had something like 5-600 CD titles manufactured over the years).

I played some of my vinyl transfers over a loud Disco set up last night, ones that have been put through my TC Finalizer and are therefore squashed (clipped due to pushing levels and limiting to -0.1 dB) and you know something, they sounded just fine (when compared to all the other tracks played that came from master tape sources and for being a vinyl transfer). I listen to them over my Sennheiser HD 580 precision headphones Stereophile: Sennheiser HD-580 headphones
and they sound just fine, so long as the disc they're taken from was in fairly good nick.

Whether or not I set my files to -0.03dB is of no importance apart from the fact that it is not set at 0bB, the recommended level that I have seen for providing files for CD production is 0.1dB, but due to accident of fate I ended up with a setting of -0.03dB, and rather than change this setting I've just adopted it as my standard, as it's nice to know that when I look at any master files that I have, I know that they all have the same uniform -0.03dB level and are unlikely to clip unless misused by someone with little audio or studio knowledge.

Unfortunately I'm still not sure you fully understand the difference between clipping and compression/limiting or how a TC Finalizer works, what are you doing with your TC Finalizer feeding an already clipped signal or are you using as it should be used as a mastering unit, as indicated in the description of the unit "the TC Finalizer enables you to produce the hottest possible final DAT or analogue master tapes, without compromising dynamic range".

I'm fairly well acquainted with the TC Finalizer as I have the TC Electronic PowerCore Master X3 version, which is the software based version of the TC Finalizer.
I've used the Master X3 for mastering in the past although it's not exactly what I'd call a transparent mastering plug-in and I don't use it that often now, I have used it to get the loudest sound out of a production without sacrificing the dynamic range too much, the great thing is that you can do this without the need to clip the audio, as it does not just chop of the top of the wave/sound file and add distortion to it.
http://www.tcelectronic.com/MasterX3.asp

For someone who seems to think that clipping is an acceptable way to get a decent level out of an audio file on a CD and also has no objection to a bit of clipping in an audio file, I find it rather strange that you have your TC Finalizer set to -0.1 dB, when you have clearly stated that it's not a problem to have audio files at 0dB and in fact its not a problem to actually go above 0dB and clip them.

I said that "if I limit a file to 0dB and send it off to a CD pressing plant, and if this file has peaks that hit 0dB for more than a few milliseconds the CD pressing plant may reject the file on the assumption that those peaks represent distortion" one of the crucial parts of this sentence is "may" I did not say that all CD pressing plants will reject it, I was just pointing out the possibility that using the maximum 0dB level could result in a rejection.
I like to keep thing simple and do things in a way that eliminates potential problems, so why send a file out a 0dB when it could get rejected and give me more work by having to send out another file, or worse still ending up with clipped CDs.

So you have had something like 5-600 CD titles manufactured over the years have they all been at -0.1 dB, if yes then why at -0.1 dB - I'd have thought that would have been a bit on the low side for you, as you have been telling me its not a problem to go up to 0dB or over it, as seen in your original quotes on clipping: "The odd clipped waveform wouldn't matter would it, depending on how severe?" or "the odd push over 0dB never did anything any harm (in digital parlance anything over 0dB digital level is considered clipped)"


Telling me you have a TC Finalizer and nice pair of headphones is all well and good as long as you know how to use them properly, as the whole point of equipment like the TC Finalizer is to try and prevent clipping and provided you with the loudest sound without clipping it and introducing distortion into the audio.
But I'm beginning to think that clipping may be part of your workflow from the outset so I'm guessing that you've probably already clipped the audio during the vinyl transfers.
Which leads me to an interesting question at what point in the recording process would you suggest clipping is introduced to the audio, when recording, pre-mastering or at final mastering, or all three! I'm guessing it's probably best to start the clipping and distortion as early on in the recording process and before anyone has had the chance to use any kind compression / limiting / mastering tools to give it a nice loud clear sound!

In which case, I'll never know how any CDs were ever released in the first 10 years or how some of today's grungier bands ever get their CDs pressed. I have plenty of CD tracks that exceed 0dB digital, don't you? Some of them do sound bloody awful, but that's probably down to there being a dynamic range of 2 dB at best.

Yes, I do have some clipped CDs and they are not nice to listen to, I have actually restored a few of the tracks from CD recently using de-clipping/restoration software.
As for old CD released in first 10 years you will find that the vast majority of early CDs steered well clear of 0dB and a lot of them have a very low sound level, but I'd rather have a CD with a lower than normal sound level than a clipped CD as it's far easier to correct a low sound level than trying to repair distorted files from a clipped CD.
As for the amount of clipped CDs produced and how they get produced, probably sloppy workmanship or sheer incompetence, who knows, I'm more interested in having Ben produced quality unclipped CDs than pondering about old clipped CDs or over-compressed grunge band CDs.

Theory and practice are two things that don't necessarily agree.

Yes, theory and practice are two things that don't necessarily agree, but the thing is that if you actually understand the theory to a reasonable level it can make it easier putting theory into practice and you can actually bend and break the rules in a useful and practical manner.

In theory a microphone should record a signal with fairly good regard to dynamic range, especially top end condensers with a very low noise floor of their own. In practice they never come close. That's why compressors are brought into play, because the dynamic range they represent is nothing like what the human ear hears. As someone who did many choral recordings, using Earthworks QTC1s Earthworks - QTC 40 - 4 to 40khz Omni
and Soundfield microphones, SoundField: MKV Studio Microphone System
I can attest to this. OK the Earthworks aren't known for a particularly low noise floor, but they are spectacular microphones none the less. With all my choral recordings, I had to gently compress the master tape, otherwise the quiet pieces were too quiet and the loudest crescendos would have taken the meters off the scale. I never had anyone ever say to me "that sounds clipped/distorted" or, " the dynamics aren't right" and they could be some ultra fussy people. One of the main arguments I'd have with the purists (who never compress anything and just let the low levels find their own space among the everyday noise) was centered on this. I'm sorry, but listening to a piece of music where I have to strain to hear some of it, isn't my idea of perfection.

Not sure what your choral recordings or the type of microphones you use have to do with the subject of digital clipping on CDs, but having provided me with another insight into your working methods, it does seem to suggest that you still have not yet fully understood the difference between digital clipping and the use of compression, the reason why nobody has told you your recordings sound clipped/distorted is because it's not being digitally clipped - it's being compressed and the dynamics are being changed!

You have either used very little compression on the choral recordings or you have been lucky that ultra fussy people have not said "the dynamics aren't right" on these, apparently the preferred method for modifying the dynamics on choral like material is to make any necessary volume changes manually using the volume automation in a DAW/audio editor/sequencer after the recording to get the best results possible without processing the whole performance with a compressor, obviously that's if you can spend the time to do it manually or have access to a DAW/audio editor/sequencer (which I guess most people do these days).


I'd really love you to sign up to the "Sound on Sound" mastering forum and find out what sort of response you got to your ideas on clipping, or you could try starting a poll on what level of clipping people think is acceptable.


I have to say that I am now growing rather tired of trying to explain the reasons for not wanting clipping on audio/CDs to you, but hopefully other board members will have found the explanations informative and will have understood the reasons why clipping should be avoided if possible, as I'm fairly sure that Ben is not going to be putting clipped files on Grand 12 inches, I think I've said about as much as I really want to on the subject of clipping - as it seem that no amount of logic or reasoning will persuade you that clipping is a bad idea.

Unfortunately this thread is slowly turning into a Spinal Tap moment:
"why don't you just make 10 louder..." "... these go to 11".

ashley_k


P.S. guys and gals - know way I'm telling Quinny the earth is round and not flat or Father Christmas doesn't exist! - I value what little sanity I have left.

[ashley_k]

It depends on my experiences with the track.
Here are the options:

Preferred : A straight transfer. Tastes can differ and the real thing simply is the real thing! Besides, why fix it if it wasn't broken.

Adjust : If I always remember having to EQ it whilst DJ-ing, I'll probably try to include whatever it apparently was missing compared to "the rest".
Examples : Superfreak got the low end it deserved. Automat only got the proper low end of the bassdrum added, which it was always lacking previously. If a track contains a badly timed edit (which I remember messing up my live mixing), I'll correct it. And if a shaky tempo intro always prevented a smooth mix-in, I'll even correct that by checking every beat against exact timing.
Example : Frantique now has a rock-steady intro and break, same goes for Amii Stewarts' Knock on Wood intro and outro.

Levels : In not yet processed recordings, many sounds make up the cumulative levels and often result in just a few spots in the whole track where all ads up to reach maximum level. I'll check these few transients often less than a dozen, adjust those few ultimate peaks (by hand) after which I can raise the volume of the whole track by several dB's without having to compress, limit or alter the sound in any perceivable way. Works like a charm.

:) Ben

Great to see nice sane working methods and glad I'm not the only one who spends time going through tracks manually changing peaks, rather than just processing the whole file, as you say it works a treat and is the best way to get a nice level out of a track without altering it greatly.

ashley_k

[QUINNY]

P.S. guys and gals - know way I'm telling Quinny the earth is round and not flat or Father Christmas doesn't exist! - I value what little sanity I have left.

Obvious reply but one I'd never use...the man (Ashley) is MAD...mad I tell ya!!:icon_biggrin:

How do you think I feel about you?:icon_rolleyes: Guess you'll never know, as I never get personal.

[QUINNY]

is the best way to get a nice level out of a track without altering it greatly.

That would be tickety-boo if we could assume the coke heads who played on it and recorded it knew what they were doing and actually knew which planet they were one when they mixed down at 4 in the morning after a 20 hour session on gear that may, or may not have been serviced regularly and kept completely up to spec. Exaggerated, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Don't suppose there were ever any masters that were rescued by brilliant mastering or cutting engineers?:icon_rolleyes:

[ashley_k]

P.S. guys and gals - know way I'm telling Quinny the earth is round and not flat or Father Christmas doesn't exist! - I value what little sanity I have left.

Obvious reply but one I'd never use...the man (Ashley) is MAD...mad I tell ya!!:icon_biggrin:

How do you think I feel about you?:icon_rolleyes: Guess you'll never know, as I never get personal.

Good heavens, Quinny please don't take it at all seriously or personally, just a silly cheap shot expressing how perplexed I am at your views on the subject that I've now said my piece on.

I'm definitely a bit mad, why else would I be on forum arguing the toss about something completely irrelevant in the GRAND scheme of things, unfortunately I'm not quite mad enough to be a genus that's the problem.

ashley_k

[musiquelover]

Finally the cd-box arrived which I pre-ordered from amazon.de (for 21,99 Euro incl. shipping, their 1st selling price was 74,99 Euro but got lowered to 57,99 Euro! And why did it take them so long to ship?:icon_confused:)

I must say that I'm positively surprised by "Float On". Great track!

"Il Veliero" is really cool as well.

I didn't know "Stomp!" before and only realized upon hearing it now that the 1996 version by Quincy Jones I have on cd is only a cover version. I like both of them.:icon_biggrin:

"Shake Your Groove Thing" I didn't know either but I'm wondering why it became such a big success in the first place as it's nothing special.