More > JRiver Media Center 19 for Windows
NEW: Improved audio analysis and volume leveling (R128)
bobkatz:
--- Quote from: Vocalpoint on November 08, 2013, 03:53:33 pm ---Bob,
100% agree with you.
However - since you are the "man" in some circles regarding this wide topic (I still read your "Mastering Audio" book with purpose :) - it would probably have more weight if you told the TT people to correct it. :)
Just sayin...
VP
--- End quote ---
I haven't gotten any budge from the TT people. Someone's being very stubborn :-(.
Vocalpoint:
--- Quote from: bobkatz on November 09, 2013, 10:54:07 am ---I haven't gotten any budge from the TT people. Someone's being very stubborn :-(.
--- End quote ---
Probably hard for them to admit they are wrong.
On another level tho - whilst I totally agree with your technical angle to this - the current "DR" measurement (via TT meter) - right or wrong - does give the layman out there an easy way to quickly determine whether a specific recording has had the crap kicked out of it via dynamic range compression.
Seeing a nice simple number like DR 12 - is much easier to process in one's brain than "6.4 LU" or many of the other values being displayed in MC v19. Looking at the Audio Analysis dialog in v19 - I sometimes feel like I am in an engineering or statistics class :)
When I visit my audio forums and want to gather some VERY quick "intel" on a specific recording prior to purchase - the DR analysis (previously via Foobar or the TT standalone meter and now - thankfully via MC) is really the only weapon out there to give us any indication on how "good" or "bad" the actual "listenability" is on any CD release. If someone has purchased a new CD and has ran it thru the DR meter - and is kind enought to post the results - that's perfect by me.
While I am all about technical "standards"- I do not think that moving to "ITU" and "PLR" and so on - will actually mean a whole lot to those simply wanting to find out if a CD is crushed to death. I agree the naming (or what the TT should be actually measuring) could/should be changed up to be more technically correct...but the pure simplicity of a single number popping out per track is what sells it for me.
At the end of the day - I really don't think a lot of folks actually care what the TT meter measuring - they just want to take comfort in the fact that if they see a 5 on the DR analysis for a specific CD - there's a very high probability that it's a sonic disaster and to stay away from it.
VP
bobkatz:
Vocalpoint...... Yeah, use the TT meter, it gives us something useful. But please tell everyone that you recommend the meter to that it's not measuring "dynamic range", it's measuring a sort of crest factor. And the two terms are very different and should not be confused.
Vocalpoint:
--- Quote from: bobkatz on November 09, 2013, 11:28:04 am --- Yeah, use the TT meter, it gives us something useful. But please tell everyone that you recommend the meter to that it's not measuring "dynamic range", it's measuring a sort of crest factor. And the two terms are very different and should not be confused.
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately - most folks that I usually yak with regarding the current "DR" meter wouldn't know crest factor from Crest toothpaste :). Most of these folks are simply trying to get thru life trying to find decent music to listen to and not get burned by the current "remaster" myths out there. This little doodad may not be technical correct - but it's easy. That's all these folks really want.
And if no one has mentioned it yet - very nice to see you on this board BTW.
Cheers!
VP
InflatableMouse:
I'm sorry I got to ask ... what is dynamic range if its not what Dynamic Range (DR) or Dynamic Range (R128) are measuring? I'm confused ...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version