Re: Using a Loudness Meter
Posted: 28 Dec 2016
It looks like the fact of using screams causes people to lose objectivity.
Not at all. Just sounds like crap to me, which is a totally objective opinion!8cros wrote:It looks like the fact of using screams causes people to lose objectivity.
There is no place for impressions.selig wrote:Not at all. Just sounds like crap to me, which is a totally objective opinion!8cros wrote:It looks like the fact of using screams causes people to lose objectivity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are in the wrong place if you believe that.8cros wrote:There is no place for impressions.selig wrote:Not at all. Just sounds like crap to me, which is a totally objective opinion!8cros wrote:It looks like the fact of using screams causes people to lose objectivity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I used screaming in vain. Ozone in the mixer channels will also clean.eusti wrote:Not sure if this conversation is going anywhere... I don't think music production can be judged from a purely technical standpoint... As in it's louder now by x... Well, if the original sound has been altered too much to achieve this, then I doubt it's going to be of much worth to the musician... At least if he liked the sound before...
D.
So based on the numbers you posted the latter track is louder (as in loudness), which is to be expected because it is distorted. When I put any track through a JCM800 at full gain it will increase its loudness. It will sound like shit but it will have increased loudness. Was that the purpose? Then just distorting the track completely would be easier.8cros wrote:Of course I hear it, but that details are not relating to the dynamic range and laudness. It is the color and character. Loads and distortion.
You focuses on completely unnecessary things.
You are wrong.
I'll explain.
I maximize mixer channels in Example 1.
I maximized only master in Example 2.
You'll understand later. Do not say nothing.selig wrote:You are in the wrong place if you believe that.8cros wrote:There is no place for impressions.selig wrote:Not at all. Just sounds like crap to me, which is a totally objective opinion!8cros wrote:It looks like the fact of using screams causes people to lose objectivity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I used screaming in vain. Ozone in the mixer channels will also clean.normen wrote:So based on the numbers you posted the latter track is louder (as in loudness), which is to be expected because it is distorted. When I put any track through a JCM800 at full gain it will increase its loudness. It will sound like shit but it will have increased loudness. Was that the purpose? Then just distorting the track completely would be easier.8cros wrote:Of course I hear it, but that details are not relating to the dynamic range and laudness. It is the color and character. Loads and distortion.
You focuses on completely unnecessary things.
You are wrong.
I'll explain.
I maximize mixer channels in Example 1.
I maximized only master in Example 2.
Otherwise I wouldn't say that looking at the distortion levels is "unnecessary things", its what audio engineers did since the beginning of their profession...
But sure, sometimes thats also not good. I'll tell the old story of Jimi Hendix recording a "live on the radio" concert at a public german radio station (NDR) again:
Each time the engineer went into the recording room he'd turn down Jimis amp, when he was back in his control room Jimi would turn up the volume again. This went back and forth a few times until the engineer said: "Mr Hendrix, if you don't turn up the amp so far you don't get these nasty distortion artifacts!!"
So maybe the new russian EDM sound is exactly what you do, what do I know. But I personally think it sounds like crap and its nothing I'd ever do in a pro context to increase loudness unless somebody wants me to artificially destroy the track.
No, nobody is against you or your examples. There's no conspiracy or anything about people ganging up against you. People are exchanging ideas and experiences based on what enters their ears - To me it appears that it's not only about the theoretical stuff anymore.8cros wrote:But I will not do other examples. That's why I got angry warning.
I understand. But it is very hot issues.Kenni wrote:No, nobody is against you or your examples. There's no conspiracy or anything about people ganging up against you. People are exchanging ideas and experiences based on what enters their ears - To me it appears that it's not only about the theoretical stuff anymore.8cros wrote:But I will not do other examples. That's why I got angry warning.
No, there's no "hot issues" - You keep talking about selig diverting from the thread subject even though he didn't.8cros wrote:I understand. But it is very hot issues.Kenni wrote:No, nobody is against you or your examples. There's no conspiracy or anything about people ganging up against you. People are exchanging ideas and experiences based on what enters their ears - To me it appears that it's not only about the theoretical stuff anymore.8cros wrote:But I will not do other examples. That's why I got angry warning.
Volume, Distortion, Jimi Hendrix.
Again, nobody is against you, how paranoid are you? This is the internet, if you're mistaking, people will call the mistakes. If you have different opinions on how audio is perceived, there's no point in discussing them - Opinions are personal and highly individual. Just don't expect people to agree with you.8cros wrote:I'm ready to go back and dwell on Selig's statement. If it ceases to aggressively push me strange questions. And it will not ignore the direct treatment.
I'm one against three people. This is called baiting dogs.
If you replace the five screams to five ozones. It will be the same result.Kenni wrote:Again, nobody is against you, how paranoid are you? This is the internet, if you're mistaking, people will call the mistakes. If you have different opinions on how audio is perceived, there's no point in discussing them - Opinions are personal and highly individual. Just don't expect people to agree with you.8cros wrote:I'm ready to go back and dwell on Selig's statement. If it ceases to aggressively push me strange questions. And it will not ignore the direct treatment.
I'm one against three people. This is called baiting dogs.
Personal opinion, discussing the visual loudness of a track being dragged through distortion algorithms and through a limiter/maximizer is one thing, how it actually sounds is another. Applying distortion on a mastering chain to gain loudness is stupid - To me! Apparently, selig and normen feel the same. Stop taking that personally.
So, when people tell you that a distortion algorithm might give you a louder visual signal but that it sounds like crap, I guess it's because they just think it sounds like crap. Nobody is debating your output, they're commenting on the perceived sound.
I know I could just ignore your debates with others, but your posts are being reported for being highly aggressive, so I'm asking you to stop being a drama queen, please.
You're probably right - The visual reading would be louder, but the perceived audio would still sound like crap to most people.8cros wrote:If you replace the five screams for five ozones. It will be the same result.Kenni wrote:Again, nobody is against you, how paranoid are you? This is the internet, if you're mistaking, people will call the mistakes. If you have different opinions on how audio is perceived, there's no point in discussing them - Opinions are personal and highly individual. Just don't expect people to agree with you.8cros wrote:I'm ready to go back and dwell on Selig's statement. If it ceases to aggressively push me strange questions. And it will not ignore the direct treatment.
I'm one against three people. This is called baiting dogs.
Personal opinion, discussing the visual loudness of a track being dragged through distortion algorithms and through a limiter/maximizer is one thing, how it actually sounds is another. Applying distortion on a mastering chain to gain loudness is stupid - To me! Apparently, selig and normen feel the same. Stop taking that personally.
So, when people tell you that a distortion algorithm might give you a louder visual signal but that it sounds like crap, I guess it's because they just think it sounds like crap. Nobody is debating your output, they're commenting on the perceived sound.
I know I could just ignore your debates with others, but your posts are being reported for being highly aggressive, so I'm asking you to stop being a drama queen, please.
it will not be louderKenni wrote:You're probably right - The visual reading would be louder, but the perceived audio would still sound like crap to most people.8cros wrote:If you replace the five screams for five ozones. It will be the same result.Kenni wrote:Again, nobody is against you, how paranoid are you? This is the internet, if you're mistaking, people will call the mistakes. If you have different opinions on how audio is perceived, there's no point in discussing them - Opinions are personal and highly individual. Just don't expect people to agree with you.8cros wrote:I'm ready to go back and dwell on Selig's statement. If it ceases to aggressively push me strange questions. And it will not ignore the direct treatment.
I'm one against three people. This is called baiting dogs.
Personal opinion, discussing the visual loudness of a track being dragged through distortion algorithms and through a limiter/maximizer is one thing, how it actually sounds is another. Applying distortion on a mastering chain to gain loudness is stupid - To me! Apparently, selig and normen feel the same. Stop taking that personally.
So, when people tell you that a distortion algorithm might give you a louder visual signal but that it sounds like crap, I guess it's because they just think it sounds like crap. Nobody is debating your output, they're commenting on the perceived sound.
I know I could just ignore your debates with others, but your posts are being reported for being highly aggressive, so I'm asking you to stop being a drama queen, please.
I do not think it is appropriate to say something like that.normen wrote:
So maybe the new russian EDM sound is exactly what you do, what do I know. But I personally think it sounds like crap and its nothing I'd ever do in a pro context to increase loudness unless somebody wants me to artificially destroy the track.