Dave - Sound levels

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ChrisM wrote:
Besides, a lot of the problem is not the peak levels, its the
compression used to make some parts sound loud.


Would you mind explaining that please?

Does that explain why some adverts sound louder than others (and louder
than the surrounding programmes - despite the fact that they are not
supposed to be?) The worst culprit at the moment being for somthing I
can't remember, but it involves lots of wild animals running round in
an office and the (eternally irritating) 'buzz buzz, buzzy bee, buzz if
you like but don't sting me' song...

There are no 'machines' which can assess relative loudness as heard by the
ear and compensate correctly. One reason being one person might consider
something they don't like to be louder than another who likes it. Think
teenagers and their music...

Also commercials and presenters have voices designed to punch through and
use mic techniques which make the most of this. Drama etc often demands
softly spoken acting. In other words there's a lot more to it than just
levels. But so saying getting those right would be a start. ;-)

It seems to me that technology has taken a backward step here. First of all
though, I don't understand how *compression* can make something sound
louder? When I think of compression, I think of something like WinZip that
compresses files to make the file smaller. When it's uncompressed, it's not
bigger than the original size, it *is* the original size, ergo, when advert
sound is uncompressed it must go back to the original level, ie, *too bloody
loud*

As for technology going backwards, I remember getting a portable
reel-to-reel tape recorder about 40 years ago (and later on, a cassette tape
recorder) that had a "Recording Level" control on. If things were recorded
at the same level, ie, "4", then there was no change between different
recordings and I didn't constantly have to fiddle with the volume control.

Surely, with all the modern technology we have, programmes and adverts could
all be recorded at sound level "4" and let the end user turn the telly sound
up if they are a bit deaf, down if they are a bit sensitive, and not change
anything if they are in the middle?

John

In message ,
John Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ChrisM wrote:
Besides, a lot of the problem is not the peak levels, its the
compression used to make some parts sound loud.


Would you mind explaining that please?

Does that explain why some adverts sound louder than others (and
louder than the surrounding programmes - despite the fact that they
are not supposed to be?) The worst culprit at the moment being for
somthing I can't remember, but it involves lots of wild animals running
round in an office and the (eternally irritating) 'buzz
buzz, buzzy bee, buzz if you like but don't sting me' song...

There are no 'machines' which can assess relative loudness as heard
by the ear and compensate correctly. One reason being one person
might consider something they don't like to be louder than another
who likes it. Think teenagers and their music...

Also commercials and presenters have voices designed to punch
through and use mic techniques which make the most of this. Drama
etc often demands softly spoken acting. In other words there's a lot
more to it than just levels. But so saying getting those right would
be a start. ;-)

It seems to me that technology has taken a backward step here. First
of all though, I don't understand how *compression* can make
something sound louder? When I think of compression, I think of
something like WinZip that compresses files to make the file smaller.
When it's uncompressed, it's not bigger than the original size, it
*is* the original size, ergo, when advert sound is uncompressed it
must go back to the original level, ie, *too bloody loud*

Think it is to do with compressing the sound(??) rather than the file, but I
don't understand it either...



As for technology going backwards, I remember getting a portable
reel-to-reel tape recorder about 40 years ago (and later on, a
cassette tape recorder) that had a "Recording Level" control on. If
things were recorded at the same level, ie, "4", then there was no
change between different recordings and I didn't constantly have to
fiddle with the volume control.
Surely, with all the modern technology we have, programmes and
adverts could all be recorded at sound level "4" and let the end user
turn the telly sound up if they are a bit deaf, down if they are a
bit sensitive, and not change anything if they are in the middle?

John

Trouble is, if you recorded something at level 4 on your tape recorder, then
gave the tape to someone else, and they added something using THEIR tape
recorder also at level 4, if their recorder was a different make/model to
yours(or quite possibly, even if it was the same) then there's a good chance
the levels would be slightly different...

Different programmes/adverts/links all come from different suppliers using
different equipment, recording techniques, encoding methods etc. etc. etc.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
In message ,
John Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ChrisM wrote:
Besides, a lot of the problem is not the peak levels, its the
compression used to make some parts sound loud.


Would you mind explaining that please?

Does that explain why some adverts sound louder than others (and
louder than the surrounding programmes - despite the fact that they
are not supposed to be?) The worst culprit at the moment being for
somthing I can't remember, but it involves lots of wild animals running
round in an office and the (eternally irritating) 'buzz
buzz, buzzy bee, buzz if you like but don't sting me' song...

There are no 'machines' which can assess relative loudness as heard
by the ear and compensate correctly. One reason being one person
might consider something they don't like to be louder than another
who likes it. Think teenagers and their music...

Also commercials and presenters have voices designed to punch
through and use mic techniques which make the most of this. Drama
etc often demands softly spoken acting. In other words there's a lot
more to it than just levels. But so saying getting those right would
be a start. ;-)

It seems to me that technology has taken a backward step here. First
of all though, I don't understand how *compression* can make
something sound louder? When I think of compression, I think of
something like WinZip that compresses files to make the file smaller.
When it's uncompressed, it's not bigger than the original size, it
*is* the original size, ergo, when advert sound is uncompressed it
must go back to the original level, ie, *too bloody loud*

Think it is to do with compressing the sound(??) rather than the file, but
I don't understand it either...



As for technology going backwards, I remember getting a portable
reel-to-reel tape recorder about 40 years ago (and later on, a
cassette tape recorder) that had a "Recording Level" control on. If
things were recorded at the same level, ie, "4", then there was no
change between different recordings and I didn't constantly have to
fiddle with the volume control.
Surely, with all the modern technology we have, programmes and
adverts could all be recorded at sound level "4" and let the end user
turn the telly sound up if they are a bit deaf, down if they are a
bit sensitive, and not change anything if they are in the middle?

John

Trouble is, if you recorded something at level 4 on your tape recorder,
then gave the tape to someone else, and they added something using THEIR
tape recorder also at level 4, if their recorder was a different
make/model to yours(or quite possibly, even if it was the same) then
there's a good chance the levels would be slightly different...

Different programmes/adverts/links all come from different suppliers using
different equipment, recording techniques, encoding methods etc. etc. etc.

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that Chris, good point. Mind you though, when I
take individual music files, say a couple of Led Zeppelin tracks, a couple
of Jethro Tull etc., etc., and burn them onto a CD for use in the car CD
player, even Nero has a facility to make all tracks the same level so that
you're not constantly fiddling with the volume control of the player so - I
don't know what - but I'm sure that *something* could be done to make things
better.

John

In article , ChrisM wrote:
It seems to me that technology has taken a backward step here. First
of all though, I don't understand how *compression* can make
something sound louder? When I think of compression, I think of
something like WinZip that compresses files to make the file smaller.
When it's uncompressed, it's not bigger than the original size, it
*is* the original size, ergo, when advert sound is uncompressed it
must go back to the original level, ie, *too bloody loud*

Think it is to do with compressing the sound(??) rather than the file, but I*
don't understand it either...

Compression reduces the ratio between the peaks and the average level, so if
the level of the compressed signal is adjusted to make the peak level fit the
available modulation depth, the quiet bits in between the peaks are louder. In
other words, the average level of the compressed sound is higher than the
average level of the original because it no longer has higher peaks that would
require it to be held down. It's loud all the time instead of only being loud
on the peaks, so overall it sounds subjectively louder.

Rod.

In article , John
scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ChrisM wrote:
Besides, a lot of the problem is not the peak levels, its the
compression used to make some parts sound loud.


Would you mind explaining that please?

Does that explain why some adverts sound louder than others (and louder
than the surrounding programmes - despite the fact that they are not
supposed to be?) The worst culprit at the moment being for somthing I
can't remember, but it involves lots of wild animals running round in
an office and the (eternally irritating) 'buzz buzz, buzzy bee, buzz if
you like but don't sting me' song...

There are no 'machines' which can assess relative loudness as heard by the
ear and compensate correctly. One reason being one person might consider
something they don't like to be louder than another who likes it. Think
teenagers and their music...

Also commercials and presenters have voices designed to punch through and
use mic techniques which make the most of this. Drama etc often demands
softly spoken acting. In other words there's a lot more to it than just
levels. But so saying getting those right would be a start. ;-)

It seems to me that technology has taken a backward step here. First of all
though, I don't understand how *compression* can make something sound
louder? When I think of compression, I think of something like WinZip that
compresses files to make the file smaller. When it's uncompressed, it's not
bigger than the original size, it *is* the original size, ergo, when advert
sound is uncompressed it must go back to the original level, ie, *too bloody
loud*

Winzip is a losses bit data compression not the same thing..

As for technology going backwards, I remember getting a portable
reel-to-reel tape recorder about 40 years ago (and later on, a cassette tape
recorder) that had a "Recording Level" control on. If things were recorded
at the same level, ie, "4", then there was no change between different
recordings and I didn't constantly have to fiddle with the volume control.

Surely, with all the modern technology we have, programmes and adverts could
all be recorded at sound level "4" and let the end user turn the telly sound
up if they are a bit deaf, down if they are a bit sensitive, and not change
anything if they are in the middle?

John


Its called Audio Processing which is a sort of compression using
multiband compression and clipping and a few other things all in all to
make the sound louder..


Have a Google for or look at

http://orban.com

who make most of the processors in use....
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Linker3000 wrote:
Just popped over to 'Dave' to watch a bit of Red Dwarf.

Who the hell balanced the sound levels?

Not me - honestly. ;-) Or anyone. Balancing sort of means an active hands
on art - not setting levels and leaving it. If anyone even got this far.

1) Red Dwarf = quiet (have to turn the volume up)
2) Ads = quiet-ish
3) Announcer = f*kin loud

Saves everyone complaining about the ads being too loud, I suppose. ;-)

Yeah,

That struck me too - the advertisers possibly having to complain that
the ads are being played too quietly. Suits me though!

Even my non-professional attempts at sound source balancing would have
been better. If I was a sound engineer at Dave (thesedays, it's probably
a YTS yoof doing NVQ Level I Audio Mixing), I would be embarrassed to
admit I worked there.

Even my non-professional attempts at sound source balancing would have
been better. If I was a sound engineer at Dave (thesedays, it's probably a
YTS yoof doing NVQ Level I Audio Mixing), I would be embarrassed to admit
I worked there.

There ain't any sound engineers working there, it will be an automated
transmission system along the lines of -

Put tape in machine, at appropriate time the transmission computer will cue
up the tape and press play when its on air, then when the comms are due to
go out the same computer will press stop, cue the comms, play & switch out
to air ident / promo, play & switch out to air comms, cue pt 2 of tx tape,
play & switch out promo, stop comms, play and switch out to air pt2 of tape
and repeat until channel closes.

The announcer will most likely have pre-recorded the links, and they would
be played over what ever is on air at that time, most likely the input to
the txm mixer is
too high, no-one is paid to monitor channels these days so it will most
likely be all over the place as seenand heard.

Bring back the good olde days with a station announcer, transmission
controller, assistant transmission controller, network control staff etc,
now when you saw a fook up there it was a person & not a computer as now

In article , Dave H
wrote:
Even my non-professional attempts at sound source balancing would have
been better. If I was a sound engineer at Dave (thesedays, it's
probably a YTS yoof doing NVQ Level I Audio Mixing), I would be
embarrassed to admit I worked there.

There ain't any sound engineers working there, it will be an automated
transmission system along the lines of -

[snip details]

Bring back the good olde days with a station announcer, transmission
controller, assistant transmission controller, network control staff
etc, now when you saw a fook up there it was a person & not a computer
as now

Indeed. One of the most intriguing foul-ups I've seen this year was the
Prom live broadcast on BBC4 which for some time showed 'CBBeebies'
animated graphics in one corner of the screen. Can't say I normally watch
the kids channels, but it looked like an animated version of a DOG, and
appeared and dissapeared a few times over many minutes. This, of course,
was at a time when the kids channels were off-air as BBC4 was on.

Gave a very strong impression that someone had pushed the wrong button (or
was commenting on the music ;- ), and no-one at the BBC was bothering to
look at what was actually being transmitted. Or did someone get a fizzer
for this and we don't know about it? Maybe a sign of a works party in
progress... :-)

Couple of years before they had a a trailer (sound and vision) for an art
series suddenly run and replaced a section of a Mozart symphony. Judging by
the timeing I guessed it was automated in some way to play at that time,
but was either on the wrong day, or the wrong channel! This was more
annoying that the CBBeebies effect as the sound of the music was lost.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Imagine a recording with a wide variation in loudness, say from -40dB
to 0dB. A simple 2:1 compression would amplify the -40dB bits to
-20dB (much louder), amplify the -6dB bits to -3dB (a little louder)
and the 0dB peaks would stay the same. Overall the whole recording
sounds 'louder', but the peak amplitude hasn't changed. This is very
useful if you want to use a medium with limited dynamic range, listen
to classical music in a car, or keep someone's microphone level
reasonably constant or whatever.

So is that what the 'loudness' button on my car stereo does?

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In article ,
ChrisM wrote:
Imagine a recording with a wide variation in loudness, say from -40dB
to 0dB. A simple 2:1 compression would amplify the -40dB bits to
-20dB (much louder), amplify the -6dB bits to -3dB (a little louder)
and the 0dB peaks would stay the same. Overall the whole recording
sounds 'louder', but the peak amplitude hasn't changed. This is very
useful if you want to use a medium with limited dynamic range, listen
to classical music in a car, or keep someone's microphone level
reasonably constant or whatever.

So is that what the 'loudness' button on my car stereo does?

No. It alters the frequency response. Basically tips up the extremes of
the audio band. Said to make things sound the same at quiet listening
levels as the ear isn't linear as regards frequency response versus level.
Doesn't, though.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.